PL 08/17/1977 - 6616�
!� J
X ~/
PLANNING COh1MIS5I0N AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
City of Fridley
AGENDA
AU6U5T 17, 1977
7:36 P.M.
GES
ROLL CALL
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION �1INUTES: AU6UST 3, 1977 1- 22
1. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAI USE PERMIT,. 23 - 26
SP #77-10, BY JILL L. ZAK: Per Fridley C�ty Code,
ection 205.131, 3 3, to allow a school of
gymnastics and exercise in M-2 Zoning {heavy industrial
areas), on the North 240 feet of the SE 174 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 3, the same being 8290 Main Street
N.E.
2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L S. #?7-08, RON NIfLSEN: Split
o t e Westerly 0 feet of ot 31, uditor`.s
Subdivision No. 77, subject to street easements>
to make a new building site on the corner of 71 1/2
Way N.E. and Aiden Circle N.E. (Existing house
on balance of the lot- 115 71 1/2 Way N.E.)
3. LQT SPL1T REQUEST, L.S.#77-09 DE 6ARDNER REAL7Y:
Split Lot 1, Block ., Marion Hills Second Addition,
and Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hills, into two parcels:
pARCEL A. The West 100' of Lot 1> Block l, Marion
t ls 2nd Addition, together with that part of the
West 100 feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hills Addn „
on file in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka
County, Mn as Document No. 455241, Bk. 889, P9•221•
Subject to a utility and drainage easement over the
above described properties as Document 339804, the
same being 1335 52nd Avenue N.E. PARCEL B. Lot 1,
Block 1, Marion Hills 2nd Addition, except �he West
100 feet thereof, to9ether with that part of Lot
12, Block 1, Marion Hills Addition, on file as
Document 455241, 61.880,Pg.221, except the West 100'
thereof. Subject to a utility and drainace easement
over the above described properties as Document
339804, the same being 1345 52nd Avenue N.E.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
REVIEW PROPQSED SI6N ORDINANCE
CON►INUED: FROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE s
PARKS AND OPEN SPAGE PLAN
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 4, 1977
OTHER BtlSINESS:
pDJOURNt1ENT
27 - 28
29 - 30
31 - 43
Seqarate
Separate
44 - 51
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1977
CALI TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the August 3, 1977, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:40 P•M•
ROLL CALL:
flembers Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Storla, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabel,
Langenfeld
None
derro2d Boardman, City Planner
APPRQVE PLANNING COMMISS26N MINUTES= JULY 27, 1977
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that on Page 2, fifth paragraph, second
sentence, should read, ^He felt they could at least commit themselves
to the fact that discrimination did/did not exist•^
Mr• �angenfeld indicated that on Page 3, sixth paragraph,
^and cry to the City for assistance later on^ should be added to
the existing sentence•
� Mr• Langenfeld indicated that on Page 9, third paragraph, second
sentence, should read, ^He feli that the greatest percentage of
the sign should be the establishment and not the product^•
�
Ms• Gabel asked that on Page 7, paragraph 3, the first
be changed from, ^Ms• Gabel said that that type of sign
indicate a special need and a Special Use Permit would
'to ^Chairperson Harris su99ested that that type of sign
indicate a special need and a Special Use Permit would
Ms• Gabel said that she had not made that statement•
sentence
would
be allowed�^
would
be allowed•"
Ms• Gabel corrected the third paragraph on Page 7, the second
sentence• She said that it presently said, ^She said that City
needed some control on these types of signs and as long as that
control was present, she would be comfortable aliowing some
businesses to use this type of sign^• The said that she wanted i�
to read, ^Ms• Gabel said that the City needed some control on these
types of signs and as long as that control was present, she would
be comfortable with it providing that criteria established for a
Special Use Permit took traffic patterns into consideration^•
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 7, paragraph B, the MOTION read
^Iliuminated sign which ehanges in either color or in intensity
of light or is animated, or has flashing or intermittent lights
{including traveling electronic message centers or electronic
message centers which change more than once every 15 minutes
except one giving time, temperature, or other public information}
be allowed oniy in C and M Districts {and not in any R Districts}
by Special Use Permit ONLY"•
�;
�
� � ,, :
z;:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 2
Ms• Ga6e1 wanted that particular motion to read, ^Illuminated
sign which changes in either color or in intensity of light or
is 'animated, or has ilashing or intermittent lights {including
traveling electronic message centers or electronic message centers
which change more than once every 15 minutes} be allowed only in
C and M Districts {and not in eny R Districts} by Special Use
Permit ONLY^•
Mr• Boardman suggested that the Sign Ordinance indicate that
all Message Center signs would require a Special Use Permit•
Chairperson Harris said that the intent af the Planning Commission
was to do just thaC•
Ms• Gabel felt that the part of the item that read ^which change
more than once every 15 minutes^ should be left in the Ordinance•
Chairperson Harris indicated that Che ^every 15 minutes^ could be
made part of the criteria that would probably be set up later�
There was some discussion regarding the statement ^electronic
message centers which change more than once eaery 15 minutes�•
Ms• Gabel felt that the statement should remain in the Ordinance•
Mr• Bergman indicated that if that statement was left in, a
business {such as Twin City Federal} that had a siqn with the
time/temperature would have to obtain a Special Use Permit and
a variance in order to have their sign•
Chairperson Harris felt that public service signs were actually
advertising signs• He said that the information draws the attention
of the public to the sign that has the business' identification
on it•
Mr• Boardman suggested a section be set up regarding those signs
which require a Special llse Permit•
Ms• Gabel indicated that the Sign Committee felt very strongly
about that phrase regarding ^every 15 minutes^ and she didn't want
to lose a^handle^ on it-
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 8, the second paragraph,
^Mr• Langenfeld quoted January 11� 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting
minutes, which stated that•-�••^ should be inserted ahead of the
first sentence in the second paragraph•
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 9, the sixth paragraph, should
read, ^Ms• Gabel said that the intent of the Sign Committee
shauld be to identify an establishment and not to advertise a
product^•
Ms• Gabel inditated that on Page 11, Paragraphs 4, 6, & 7, should
reference ^variances^ and not ^Special Use permits^•
�
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSI4N MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 3
ns• Gabei corrected the f,ifth paragraph, page 13, to read,
^Ms• Gabel said that the Committee's definition of a readerboard
should be that a readerboard could be.a ••••••••••^
Ms• Gatrel said that on Page 14, item 5{c}, second paragraph,
should read, ^Ms• Gabel said that the Sign Project Committee
had wanted a 10� sq• ft• sign- She felt that the emergency
sign in {c} should be much larger•••-•••^•
Ms• Gabel indicated that on Page 17, item 7, third paragraph
second sentence, should read, ^He requested Ruben to work some
on this item^•
Ms• Gabel corrected the second paragraph in item 7, page 17+
to read, ^Ms• Ga6e1 responded that generally the idea was if
the sign was 50i delapitated, it must meet the code; or,
if because the sign had been repaired and then brought SOi
into compliance with the code, then the total sign would have
to be brought up to code•^ She said that this was the paragraph
that {as stated above} Mr• Acosta would try to ^clean up"•
Ms• Gabel explained that the point that was trying to be made was
tMat if someone had a sign and started to repair it or fix it up
and by fixing it, they wind up bringing it 50i into compliance,
then they would have to bring their total sign into compliance•
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
� minutes of the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission meeting be
approved as amended• Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously- The minutes were approved at 8:05 P.M-
RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES= JULY 19, 1977
Mr• Langenfeld added the title, ^Councilwoman^ to Carroll Kukowski's
name listed under Members Present on the first page of the minutes•
He also corrected the spelling of Louis Doyle listed under
flembers Present�
Mr• Langenfeld corrected the spelling of �r• Loken's name on
page 5, third paragraph•
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the July 19, 1977, meeting had been
a very interesting meeting• He said the the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency had given a really �ice presentation•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the Planning
Commission, receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes
of July 19, 1977, as amended• Upon a voice voteti all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously• The minutes were received at $:13 P•M-
�
PL-ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 4
RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENS COMMI3SI4N MINUTES� JULY 26, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded
planning Commission receive the
minutes of July 26, 1977•
by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Community Development Commission
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the word ^PARK^ should be used
whe� referring to the Island of Peace ^Park^•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know who was responsible for all
the dead trees on Gil Hodge's Island-
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that they were the responsibility of
the City• He said that since the Island was to be left in its
natural state, he didn't think the City would. get a crane and
a ferry and go and start taking the trees down•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the City had a Shade Tree
Ordinance•
Mr• Langenfeld said thai it was, indeed, the responsibility
of the �ity•
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Commission had reviewed the proposed
Parks and Open Space Plan and he said that the Staff had done
a sizable job and put forth much effort into that ^preliminary^
proposal• He pointed out that the Commission had motioned to
concur with the Parks & Open Space Plan with the considerations
that were listed on Rage 5 of the minutes•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Community Development Commission minutes
were received at 8:20 P•M-
RECEIVE PARKS 8 RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 25, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission
minutes oi July 25, 1977•
Mr• Langenfeld asked for the actual dates involved when, on
page 3, paragraph S, first sentence, ^Mr, Kirk informed the
Commission that most ef the summer programs were ending that
week and the following week^•
Mr� Peterson responded that the weeks referred to were the
weeks of July 25, 1977 and pugust y, 1977•
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 5_
Mr• Bergman thought it was great that there were lights on the
Tennis Courts• However, he said that he drove past the Courts
. on a particular rainy night, and the lights were on in the
• Tennis Courts; and, of course, there was no one playing tennis•
He felt, that since everybody is concerned about energy conservation,
that perhaps samething could be done to remedy that particular
situation•
Mr• Peterson indicated that that had been mentioned before• He
explained that the lights were on a timer and he posed the
question of ^who do we have to turn the 2ights off on the nights
• it rains^• He said that Fridley no longer had a Park Ranger•
Mr• Peterson mentioned that the Tennis Courts definitely did
get a lot of night use and that there was no neighborhood �
objections to the lights remaining on until midnight•
Mr• Peterson pointed out that the Commission was not solving
all the problems in the ftiverview Heights area but that they
were makinq an effort to satisfy the Community to give them
a variety of activities within the allotted space {he referred
to Item C on Page 5 of the Parks 8 Recreation tommission minutes}.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
The minutes of the Parks 8 Recreation Commission meeting of
July 25, 1977, were received at 8:23 P.M•
1• CONTINUED= PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANtE
Chairperson Harris brought Mr� Boardman and Mr• Bergman up to date
on what had transpired at the previous meeting•
Mr• Peterson commented that he felt the previous meeting had been
a very worthwhile and productive meeting• He said that the meeting
had probably been one of the best Planning Commission meetings
that he had attended for as long as he had been on the Commission
{3+ years}.
There was some discussion regarding the sign companies and their
objections to Fridley proposing to not allow ANY billboards in
the City• Ms• Gabel pointed out that the original intent of the
Sign Ordinance, when it was first written, was to at some point
in time, going to elimi�ate billboards• She questioned how much
legal ground that knowledge gave the City, but that had been the
original intent•
�
PLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 6
Chairperson Harris indicated that the existing signs would be
^grandfathered^ in• He said that the situation would be that
there would be no new billboards and also any sign that was over
50X destroyed or whatever, couldn't be replaced•
Mr• Bergman said that that was not the total view taken two
years ago when it was tried to tie in the iife span of each
of the existing billboards to a^lease termination date^ and
at that point, out they would have gone. He went on to say
that the City Council had backed off on the end dates that
had been proposed by the Planning Commission•
' Mr� Boardman pointed out that by forbidding billboards, to a
certain degree, City would be intruding on a citizen's right
of free speech• He said that when that ^free speech^ started
to make aesthetic impositions on the Community, that would be
where the Courts would start drawing the line• Mr• Boardman
wasn't sure how the determination was made as to whether a
billboard was aesthetically pleasing or not•
Chairperson Harris said that City cannot dictate to the Sign
Companies what they put on their signs {as long as it wasn't
obscene or pornographic}. He said that City cannot control
the advertising that was on the sign itself once a permit was
issued for the sign• thairperson Harris felt that the City
did have the right not to issue a permit for a sign•
Ms• Gabel commented that there were two states that did not
have billboards — Vermont and Hawaii• She also said that
Brooklyn Park did not have or allow billboards•
Mr• Boardman had questions regarding Readerboards• He asked
that if a Reader6oard was allowed with a Special Use Permit,
then wou2d advertising signs be allowed with a Special Use
Permit; and if advertising signs would Be allowed with a
Special Use Permit, then wouidn't the billboards be back in the
realm of a Special Use Permit• He wanted to know now the bill-
boards and other advertising signs wouid be handled• He'fe7.t
that the item would cause some conflicts•
Mr• Boardman pointeG out that a readerboard_could be allowed
by a Special Use permit and that readerboard could be an
advertising sign- He said that the Ordinance then read that
advertising signs would not be allowed�
Ms• Ga6el said that as she had stated at the previous meeting
that traveling message centers would be brought into the same
thing that Mr• Boardman was pointing out; if the message was
advertising a product, then it would not be allowed.
�
�,
U
�.
_ _ _ ___ __. _ . __ _ _ . .. .. _._ , _ , , _ __ _ ��
i
�
�
PLRNNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 7
Mr
to
Mr•
on
not
Langenfeld pointed out
�e.aderboards, as such•'
Boardman said that the
a readerboard would be
ailowed-
that the Commission had been referring
tommission was saying that advertising
allowed, but that advertising signs were
Mr. Peterson pointed out that what the Commission was most
concerned with was the businessman within Fridley that depended
. on Readerboard advertisement for the economic well-being of
their Company•
Mr• Boardman wanted to know if the Commission was trying to control
Readerboards or the allowable free-standing advertising sign
with the Special Use Permit; and, if so, he wanted to know what
criteria they planned to use•
Chairperson Harris indicated that Mr• Boardman's statement was
correct• Ne said that the criteria would be the size, the
construction, and there would be some statement regarding the
health, §afety, and welfare f�r the location of t�e signs• He
felt that a readerboard at certain locations could very well be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare nf the general
public• He said that if the person applying for the Special
Use Permit did not meet the criteria, then he would not be
issued the Permit• �
nr• Boardman said that the Ordinance would not allow any
advertising signs in any districts except under special canditions
allowed by Special Use Permits• He indicated that those conditions
would be to allow advertising signs of a certain square foatage,
as an integral part of an identification sign that is directly
related to products and services available upon that site
�
Mr. Boardman indicated that under the district regulations
8� sq- ft• would 6e the maximum size per development• He said
that within that maximum 8❑ sq• ft• City was indicating the
maximum square footage of readerboard or ad�ertising which would
all have to fall under that 8� sq• ft• He wanted to know if
the Commission wanted to put a maximum size on the readerboards•
Ms• Gabel fe2t that if a business had a readerboard, that would
be the sign• She said that the maximum of 80 sq• ft• had to
be adhered to anyways•
Mr• Boardman agreed.that the readerboard size would not have to
be limited since only 80 square feet of signage is allowed•
He indicated that he liked the section that restricted the
totai square footage of signage to 8❑ square feet•
PLANNING COMMISSIAN MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 8
Chairperson Harris commented on the message center signs as to
whether they were public service signs or not• He wanted to �
know how the existing Ordinance handled the signs, such as
the Twin City Federal Time/Temperature signs•
Mr• Boardman said that the existing Ordinance allowed the
time/temperature signs•
Chairperson Harris thought that the Twin City Federal time/
temperature signs were very clever advertising signs• He said
that a person's attention is drawn to the sign to read the time/
temperature, and at the same time the person also reads the
Twin City Federal sign•
Mr• Bergman said that the same type of advertising is done by
Perkins when they use the American Flag-
At that point a brief discussion arose discussing the proper
respect that should be shown to the American Flag•
Ms• Gabel felt that it was most disrespectful that {perkins}
leaves the American Flag outside during inclimaCe.weather•
She said that it WAS NOT ALLOWED to be left outside during
inclimate weather, whether it is lighted properly or not•
Mr• Soardman indicated that Item 12 oF the Dafinitions {204•02}
of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be changed to read,
12• thangeable Copy Sign {putomatic}: A sign such as �
an electronically or electrically controlled time,
temperature and date sign message center or reader
board, where different copy changes are shown on the
same lamp bank•
He removed the words ^public service^ from the description•
Mr- Boardman indicated that Item 29 of the Definitions {204•02}
of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be changed to read,
29• Reader Board: Denotes a manual changeable copy sign•
He added the word ^manual" to the description•
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 33 of the Definitions {204•D2}
of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be changed to read,
33• Sign Area: The total area ofi the sign including the
border and the surface which bears the advertisement•.•••
Mr• Boardman indicated that Item 9 of Signs Prohibited in all
Districts {214.031} of tne proposed Sign Ordinance should read,
9• Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in
intensity of light or is animated, or has flashing
or intermittent lights-
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUG�ST 3, 1977 Page 9
Ms• Gabel asked a6out the definition of flashing signs-
� Mr•�Boardman said that a definition of fiashing signs had been
added to the proposed Sign Ordinance-
Ms• Gabel asked if the City had turned their sign off yet•
�
�
Mr• Boardman said that the City had.been ordered on Q8/01/77
to turn their sign off•
Chairperson Harris indicated that it had taken Council action
for the City to follow their own Sign Ordinance•
Mr- Boardman indicated that Item 15 of Signs Prohibited in all
Districts {214•03�} of the proposed Sign Ordinance should be
eliminated entirely from that section and moved to a new section
that would follow section 214•�43 and name the section
^Tigns Permitted With Special Use permits^• He felt that a
separate section was needed for these special signs•
There was some discussion on Section 214•048 {a} regarding
the requirement of a comprefiensive sign plan for multiple use
bui2dings of three or more businesses••••
Mr• 8oardman indicated that the Sign permit is issued to the
oWner of a building and gener�lly office space is leased from
the owner of the buiZding and he would be the one who would
have to submit a plan•
Mr- Boardman indicated that City would have no control over the
types of businesses in a building; they would have control over
the sign only•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know the number of Special Use Permit
involvements that were being proposed•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the only Special Use Permit
involvements would be for the changeable copy signs•
Mr• Bergman asked if there would ever be a possibility that
a special use permit request would be denied for the time/
temperature type sign•
Chairperson Harris indicated that in certain cases that type of
sign would be disapproved• If the Commission fe2t that that
sign would be detrimental to health, safety, and welfare of the
general public, the request for a Special Use Permit would be
denied•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 10
Mr• Boardman next discussed the Section 214•05 {General Requirements}
item 3{Fees}• He wanted to know if the Commission wanted the, �
item to read as it originally was, ^The annual permit fee and
expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of this code^•
rir• Boardman felt that the word "annual^ should be deleted.
Mr• Peterson indicated that the word ^annual^ had been removed
at the previous meeting• He said that he had made the MOTION
and Ms• Gabel had seconded it, to change the item to read,
^There shall be a one-time permit fee".
• Mr. Bergman asked 'that it be indicated somewheres in the Ordinance
that there will be semi-annual inspections-
Chairperson Harris said that inspections would have to be done
by policy•
Ms• 6abe1 said that if the inspections had to be done by policy,
they wouldn't be done at all-
Mr• Boardman indicated that the City can't charge more for a
Permit than it would cost the Administrative Staff to issue that
permit•
Mr• Bergman said that that was,the idea behind the semi-annual
maintenance program. to defray the cost of the inspections•
Mr• Boardman disegreed with the idea of charging a business th�t
ha� a good sign and kept the sign well maintained an annual
inspectian fee•
Ms• Gabel indicated that that was the Chamber of Commerce's
feelings also• � � �
�� i
Ms• Gabel said/that presently there was no system for maintenance
ain
now w y e Y
Mr• Boardman said that if the Commission wanted a system of reviewing
all the signs every two years, then they would have to find a
system of charging for it•
Mr• Bergman indicated that it had been the general idea to set
up a citizenry committee to find out what the citizens wanted not
what the Staff wanted. He said that a key concern of that committee
had ta do with the appearance of the signs. He felt that a
citizenry cammittee was a good focal view regarding appearance•
He didn't feel that the citizenry view should be white-washed by
way of administratio� costs•
i
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 11
Ms• Gabel indicated that she had voted irt favor of deleting the fee
� but she had understoad that it would not mean the deletion of
the 3nspections• 3he said that if the City did not have any
• p�ovisions to have some type of maintenance and enforcement, then
the City did not need a Sign Ordinance• She indicated that she
did vote for the one-time permit fee because she did agree with
what the thamber of Commerce had said but if the City couldn't
find some way to enforce/maintain the Ordinance, then the Sign
Ordinance would be worthless.
Mr. Peterson said that he took exception to the fact that when
one talked about 'a citizenry committee, in terms of a Sig�
Committee, there was no way that Staff scientifically made sure
that the members had been a cross-section of the citizens�
He felt that it should very carefully be indicated that the�
Committee was composed of citizens that were appointed but he said
that it was not really a citizenry committee which really reflected
the total opinion of the citizens of Fridley-
Chairperson Harris said that the Chamber of Commerce had had
their fair ^shake^ at the previous meeting•
Mr• Peterson said that they had been heard at the previous
meeting, but pointed out that the Commission was presently
changing some of the things that the Chamber of Commerce was
most adamant about•
� Mr. Peterson pointed out that of a1Z the peopie in his
residential block, no one had ever approached him regarding
anything about signs. He wanted to know where the ^drive^
was toming from to have a Sign Ordinance• He said he didn't
believe that the Council was being flooded with titizens
objecting to signs• He wanted to know where the big ^push^
for getting rid of signs was coming from.
Ms• 6abe1 pointed out that the original idea was not to eliminate
all signs but to clean-up the signs• She said that the Sign
Project Committee wanted to clean-up the signs that Fridley had
to make it more aesthetically pleasing•
Mr- Bergman said that the Project Committee was a citizenry
committee• He said he wasn't sure of their limitations or
their qualifications, and he said that they did not represent
the total citizenry of Fridley because there were only five
people• He said that the intent of setting up the Project
Committee was to get citizenry input. Ne agreed that it had
been done in a limzted fashion. He said that the people
weren't necessarily neighborhood representatives, but they
were in essence a Citizenry Committee�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Paae 12
M�. Boardman pointed out that a Project Committee was not set
up to get a total cross-section view of a problem. He said a
Committee was set up for looking into some of the problems and
to come up with certain recommendatio�s to help solve some
of the problems that the Commission would not have time to get
involved in all the details/pro6lems- He said that the Staff
did want to get all the input it could from the citizens, but that
a Project Committee was set up to look at a certain projectJ
problem.
Ms• Gabel pointed out that a Project Committee.had to operate
on a very limited basis in terms of making any decisions• She
said that a Committee generally did not have any TtaFf resource
or any legal aid• She indicated that one point that kept coming
ac�oss was that the present sigrt Code was not being enforced- She
felt it was important that some means was found to make the�Sign
Ordinance work once it was finished• 5he asked what good a
Sign Ordinance was if a way was not decided to make it work.
She indicated that she was all in favor of not putting that burden
on the business-person.
Mr. Bergman said thaC there had been e�ough discussion regarding
the disadvantages of charging the business person the inspection
fee• He wanted to know what would be a better method• He said
he liked the results of the inspection fees• He pointed out that
the project commiCtee fiad not been limited in their vision and they
had said that the maintenance was not being enforced and the
appearance was bad•
Mr- Peterson felt that the Sign Project Committee had done a good
job that had involved a lot of hard work. He said that his only
objection was, that in definition, they were the citizenry of
Fridley because that they were not. He said tfiat the tommittee
was a group of citizens that had been given an assignement. He
didn't believe that tfie {ity should place a burden on the citizens
of Fridley who had the ^misfortune^ of owning a business and
providing services and employment opportunities within the City•
He had gotten the impression many times that the Plan�ing
Commission was trying to pat the business in Fridley out of
Fridley• He felt that if City would charge a business person an
inspection fee for his sign, the effect would not solve any
problem especially since there has been a sign at the Mall that
had been present for many years from a defunct business and the
sign is stiil there. He said that the City could have charged
all they wanted and that sign would have continued to become
more and more delapitated.
,
�
,,
�.
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AllGUST 3, 1477 Paqe 13
Mr. Boardman said that if the City got into systematic enforcement
of the Sign Ordinance, it would involve a great deal of Staff time,
'i Staff that the City didn't have, Staff that would be taken from
other important issues facing the City. He indicated that there
were many City Codes that should have systematic enforcement• He
said that the City had to rely on the citizens' complaints and
visual inspections• He said that Staff did take City tours every so
often and would make notes of the things that needed repair. He said
that letters would be sent to those businesses that were in
violation of the code•
Mr. Peterson explained that reasoning behind changing the item
to a^one-time permit fee^ had been the understanding that the
person who had the sign would have to maintain the sign and if
he received a complaint from the City, then he could be told to
either take the sign down or repair it.
Chairperson Harris explained that the enforcement on any of the
signs that required a Special Use Permit, it cauld be added
into the criteria that the sign would be reviewed by Staff
annuaily•
Ms• Gabel said that generally the signs that needed Special
Use Permits were the more expensive signs and those people
are most likely going to properly maintain their signs•
� Chairperson Harris pointed out that the Special Use Permits
were required for all changeable copy signs that would
include any readerboards, manual or automatic• He said
that he was sure that one of the criteria for the Special
Use Permit would be the item indicating that there would
be an annual inspection•
Mr• Bergman pointed out that the Si9n Project Committee had
gone through the city of Fridley with the specific purpose of
observing the signs• He said that the general public did not
pay as close attention to all the signs as did the Project Committee•
He indicated that the Project Committee had studied all the signs
and had reported that the maintenance was not good• He said that
unless the Commission went out and paid equal attention to the signs,
they had no right to say that the signs looked good and didn't
need enforced maintenance• h,,�, .
/ � ,�:
Ms• Gabel indicated thatt� enance on
ou
Mr• Storla inquired when the first complaint on the King Chalat
sign was received.
Mr• Boardman explained to the Commission the variety of actions
bhat had taken place regarding the King Chalet's sign•
�
-PLANNING COMMITSION MEETING - AllGllST 3, 1977 Paqe 14
�s. Gabel felt that the City's ^complaint system^ was not adequate
enough because she didn't thi�k that the City handled complaints
:properly•
Chairperson Harris asked how many signs, totally. there were in the
fity of Fridley that would have to be included in an annual
inspection- -
Mr. Boardman commented that Lhere were close to S,OOO siqns in
Fridley that would have to be inspected annually.
Mr• Storla left the Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 P•M.
because of previous committments•
There was a discussion regarding the cost of hiring one full-time
Sign Inspector who wovld inspect all the sig�s in Fridley on a
bi-annual basis• The cost for this proposed Sign Inspector would
be charged back to the businesses in Fridley that would be having
their signs inspected•
The question of the costs of sign permits came up.in the discussion•
Mr- Boardman told the Commission that the fee for a Sign Permit
for a sign up to 4� sq• ft. was $10. Ne said that the fee for
a Sign Permit over 40 sq. ft. was $25.
Chairperson Harris felt that the Permit Fees should be the same,
as the proposed fee schedule would be the same• He didn't like
the idea of the two separate fees being charged for the sign
permits•
Ms. Gabel agreed with the decision that the tity could not
enforce all the codes that were in existence• She pointed out
that there were some codes that more obviously would need
enforceme�t than others.
Ms. Gabel indicated that it had been OBVIOUS to the Sign Pro'ect
Committee � r L°�
^'°�''.x-�„ �� .�'� J/ .
Mr. Boardman indicated that he had personally driven around the
City of Fridley and he had made it a point to look at the signs•
He didn't see that there was that much of a maintenance problem.
Ms. �abel indicated that she had voted to delete the an�ual fee,
and she didn't want to have to add the extra staff, but she did
want to know how to enforce sign mai�tenance better than it was
presently being handled•
�
i
�
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 15 _
Mr• Boardman indicated that possibly more staff time could be
devoted to the enforcement of sign maintenance• He said that
i pos5ibly three times a year Staff personnel could spend a few
haurs touring the city• He felt ihat by driving out in the
community they would be able to catch a Zot of the maintenance
problems•
Mr• Boardman felt that most of the signs in Fridley were kept
up and properly maintained because the business person that put
that sign up is using the sign as the identification sign and
� that person would want the sign to be in good order and to look
nice• Mr- Boardman felt that 85i - 9�'r, of the signs in Fridley
" are properly maintained• He didn't be2ieve that the annual
fee would achieve what the Sign Code wanted to achieve• He wasn't
sure it was worth the cost of a Sign Inspector just for that
10% — 15i that were in violation•
Ms• Gabel said that when she voted for the one-time permit fee
that she had been under the impression that there would be
some provisions provided to enforce the proper maintenance of
the Sign Ordinance• She fe2t that if Chere was a way Staff
could handle this without a permit fee, she indicated that it
would be acceptable to her•
Mr• Boardman said that the Staff would much rather increase their
staff time for that purpose• 'He felt that Ttaff would be able
to catch the majority of the problems
� Mr• Peterson said that he understood Mr• Boardman said that
the Planning Commission would send both the July 27th and the
August 3rd proposals on to City Council• He wanted to know .
exactly what the procedure would be•
Chairperson Harris indicated that if the Planning tommission wanted
to, both proposals could be sent on to City Council•
MOTI4N by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
planning Commission reconsider Section 214•05 {General Requirements}+
Item 3{Fees}. �pon a voice vote, Mr• 8ergman voting aye,
►7s- Gabel abstained, and Mr• Harris, Mr• Langenfeld, and
Mr- Peterson voting nay, the motion failed•
17s• Gabel indicated that she had abstained because she feit that
she couldn't misrepresent what had come aut of the Sign Project
�ommittee but she also couldn't misrepresent her own feelings•
flOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• 6abe1, that the Planning
Commissiun send the proposed Sign Ordinance as amended on to
CiCy Council, but the planning Commission would have a chance to
proof-read the Ordinance at the next meeting bef.ore �ity Council
acts, so that corrections, if any, could also be included•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motian carried unanimously•
� Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 9:56 P•M•
Chairperson F+arris called the meeting back to order at 1U:U6 P.M-
PLANNI�G COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 16
MOTION 6y Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission suspend the rules and handle CODE OF ETHICS
next on the agenda• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
3• CONTINUED: CODE OF ETHICS:
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Community Development Commission
had discussed the Code of Ethics at the July 26, 1977, meeting•
He said that the Commission had moved to accept the Cade of
Ethics as stated• �
Mr• Bergman said that the three Commission members that had
been present at the July 26th meeting individually had no problems
with the Code of Ethics� He said that not much thought had
been given as to whether anyone else would have personal problems
with it•
IMr• Langenfeld said that he had called each member of the
Fridley Environmental Commission in order to get their inputs
regarding the Code of Ethics- He said that Bruce Peterson
had said he was for it but he felt that the penalty was too
severe and suggested something to the effect of dismissal•
He said that Dave Sabistina said that he couldn't see that
particular code of ethics applicable to any of the Commission
people• He felt that the Mayor a d other ^high city officials^
d f ld said that
�
should be sub�ected to the Co e• Mr• Langen e
Lee pnn Sporre said that it would e wonderful and felt it should .,
i! be applied to a Staff• She had said that Fridley was now
�� a arge i y and they should have such a Code of Ethics•
�r• Langenfeld said that tonnie Metcalf was on vacation and
couldn't be reached•
Mr• Langenfeld said that he liked the proposed Code of Ethics•
He felt that in certain cases a conflict o4 interest would have
been detrimental to the decision making process at any level•
He said that he agreed with the Code• He indicated that he
felt the penalty was too severe• He ielt that dismissal would
be adequate penalty
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms- 6abe1, to accept
the Ordinance establishing a Code ot Ethics for City Officials
as written bearing in mind the comments made by the various
Commissions�
Mr• Peterson questioned the legality of the Code of Ethics in
terms of discrimination. He didn't feel that Section 30•�1�
Subdivision 3, second sentence, ^Financial interest sha1Z
apply to real or personal properties owned by the person making
the disciosure and by said person's spouse, children, mother or
fathsr ^ should apply• He felt that that statement was a real
invasion of privacy•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 17
Ms• Gabel said that she had been led to believe that there were
� some,amendments to the Code of Ethics• She wanted to knaw if
perhaps ahat Mr• Peterson was saying was not one of the
amendments•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission could
recommend that as an amendment
Chairperson Harris said that he would have pro6lems with that
section of the Code of Ethics• He said that, indeed, he could
disclose any financial interests that his children had since
they were minors• He said that there would be no way he could
disclose what financial intersts his parents had if they chose
not to tell him•
The Commission members were curious as to where this Ordinance
came from•
Ms• Gabel said that the Code of Ethics Ordinance was modeled
after the Golden Valley Code of Ethics•
Mr• Peterson felt that the Ordinance establishing a Code of Ethics
for City Officials, as written, was an invasion of privacy- He
felt that since he chose to serve on the Commission that his
family shoul.d not have to diclose their financial interests• He
said that they were not the ones serving on the Commission and
. that they had the right to their privacy•
Mr• Bergman said that he was main2y looking at the intent of
the Ordinance and that he was in favor of the intent•
nr• Peterson said that he was in favor of the intent also
because he was in favor of good government• He said that
the intent was good but if a bad ordinance was being written
then he suggested cor^�cting the.Ordinance and keeping the
intent and limiting the scope of who 'it would apply to•
Chairperson asked if the person making the motion wanted to
amend the motion to concur and mation to strike the words
^spouse, children, mother, father^ from the Ordinance•
Mr• Bergman said that he felt that the word ^misdemeanor^
should be changed to dismissal•
Chairperson Harris said that the Planninq tommission could
make an amendment to the motion that was on the floor at
that time to make the above changes, without first acting on
the original motion�
�
�
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 18
Ms- Gabel said that �ity Council had already passed the first �
readinq of the Code of Ethics• She wanted to know what would
happen to the suggestions that were made that night•
Chairperson Harris said that the City Council could amend the
Ordinance before the second reading• _
There was a brief discussion regarding the word ^misdemeanor^
and what could result from that severe of a penalty•
' Mr• Bergman referenced section 30•31 of the Code of Ethics•
He thought the word ^Permanent^ should be added to the
comment, ^•••each membe'r of any commission or committee
shall file,•••••"• The new statement would read, ^••••each
member of any permanent commission or permanent committee•••^-
M�• Peterson felt that committee should have been striken
completely from the Code of Ethics•
Mr• �angenfeld referenced the second sentence under Subdivision 1
of 5ection 3d•01 of the Code of Ethics• He read the sentence,
"`°"^In recognition of this goal, there is hereby established a
cade of ethics for public officials, elected and appointed,
and for top level city employees•^ He then went on to read
the.definition of ^top level city employees^• He said it
� steted, ^the term top level city employee shall include the •
City Manager etc•^ The reason Mr• Langenfeld brnught this
item up was that he definitely thought that the City Manager
should be included in the Cade af Ethics- He said that the
City Manager sets the policy as to the City Attorney, etc•
Chairperson Harris said that the Ordinance specifically
spelled out the Commissions, the Council, and the City Attarney•
Mr- Langenfeld pointed out that if some of the amendments that
were indicated were redundant to an a'lready existing amendment,
then Gity Council could decide what to do since tne Planning
Commission did not have a copy of the amendments-
Mr• Peterson suggested that Section 30•01� 3ubdivision 3, the
second sentence be changed to read, ^Financial interest shall
apply to real or personal properties owned by the person making
the discLosure^• He said that he would like to see the remainder
of the sentence deleted•
�
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Pa�e 19
Mr• Langenfeld said that since this Ordinance is different and
unique from the usual ordinance, he felt that the penalty of
� misdemeanor was too severe and he wanted the penalty to be
dismissal of the individual-
��
Mr• Bergman referenced Section 30•31, sabdivision 1• He said
that it should read, ^within 3d days after the effective date
of this code of ethics, each member of any permanent cammission
or permanent committee shall file, ••••^•
Mr• Bergman said that Section 30•10 should read, ^The provisions
of the code of ethics shall be applicable to all members of the
city council and the fo2lowing advisory bodies: {here list all
permanent commissions•that are subject to this ordinance}�.
Mr• Peterson wanted to know which corporations or interests he
would have to list under Section 30•31-
Chairperson Harris said that he would only have to Iist
the corporations or interests that he had within the City of
Fridley• He indicated that where the person was employed
would have to be listed if that Company was located in the
City of Fridley or did business with the City of Fridley•
nr• Bergman said that the statement ^to the best of my knowledge^
would have to be included someplace in the Ordinance before
a person should sign his name•
Discussion took place regarding the disclosure percentages
of Si and 1Di• Mr- Peterson made a motion to amend the motion
to be consistent throughout the Cade of Ethics and to change
the 5i to 10i•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•.
The motion to accept the Ordinance establishing a Code of Ethics
for City Officials '_: hearing in mind the comments made
tiy the various Commissions along with the proposed amendments
would go to City Council by the next meeting when they would
have the second reading•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Chamber of Commerce was
upset due ta some letters that had been written in the area
of code enforcement• He said that the Chambar wanted to form
a citizens advisory committee• He said ihat the committee would
have a meeting on August 19, 1977, because they believe that there
should be some revisions to the Zoning Code• Chairperson Harris
said that he had offered them his services to act as a liason
between the City/Planning Commission and the advisory committee•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 20
Mr• Peterson canfirmed the fact that there are some very unhappy
people• He inTOrmed Chairperson Harris that he had volunteered
for a lot of work•
�r- Boardman expiained to the �ommission members the situation
they were talking about• He said that about one year ago
the tity started a tity Beautification Pragram• He said that
they got together with the Chamber of Commerce to get their
help in upgrading some of Fridley's 6usiness community- He
said that letters were sent to businesses in the community
asking them to volunteer information as to how to beautify
their property-
Mr• Boardman said that the reason the City did this was because
there was a Section of the City Code that stated that existing
properties must reach the listed conditions by the year 1974•
He said that the City had been reluctant to enforce that section
of the code• ,. _
Mr• Boardman went on to explain that the City had tried to
get compliance of the section through a volunteer program•
He seid that Staff had gotten very poor response in that
aspect on a volunteer basis• He said that the next step
that the City took was more of a full compliance aspect•
He said that code enforcement letters had been sent out
notifying the businesses that they were in violation of
certain sections of the City Zoning Ordinan w•
Mr• Boardman said that the Staff had not received that many
negative responses to their letters•
Chairperson Harris indicated that that was not the ^story^
that he had heard• He wanted to know if the Planning
Commission wanted a representative from the Planning
Commission to meet with the representatives of the Chamber
of Commerce• �
f1s• Gabel felt thaC Chairperson Harris would be able to
explain different aspects of the Zoning Code because he
works with it all the time•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that Chairperson
Harris be the official representation of the Planning Commission
to act as a liason between the Commission and the Chamber of
�ommerce's advisory Committee• Upon e voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
�
C�
�
PLANNING C4MMISSION MEETING — AUGUTT 3, 1977 Paqe 21
2• CONTINUED� PROPOSED MAINTENANCE C�DE
� Mr•`Sergman commented that during previous meetings it had 6een
agreed that the Planning Commission would keep the wording of the
Residential Maintenance Code slanted towards maintenance rather
than provisions•
Mr• Boardman suggested that section 220•17+ Item 1, be reworded
to read, ^Kitchen Facilities: Kitchen facilities in every
unit shall be maintained in the following manner:^
There was some discussion regarding whether a heated water supply
� is required in a Kitchen unit•
nr• Peterson stated that if the Uniform Building Code stated
that a person has to have a hot water heater in the building,
that would cover any requirement• He didn't feel that the
Residential Maintenance Code would have to indicate that one
was required• He felt, that as long as the Building Code
stated that he had to have a hot water heater, all this Code
should indicate is that it is in proper working �ondition•
In reference to Item 22Q•17 Item 1, A, Mr• Peterson suggested
that it be worded, ^Where a kitchen sink exists, it must be
in proper working condition^:
� nr• Boardman made reference to Section 220•16+ Item 1,
^Minimum Plumbing Standards: All plumbing in every dwelling
unit and all shared or pu6lic areas, shall be properly installed
:: and maintained in a sanitary, safe, and functioning condition,
and shall be connected to an approved utility system in a manner
prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City
of Fridley, and 6y the Iaws of the State of Minnesota•^ He felt
that this item took care of all the discussion that was being
had regarding the proper working condition of kitchen sinks and
exactly how specific the Code should be•�
Mr• Boardman didn't think it was necessary to list each individual
facility in the plumbing system- Ne felt it would only be
redundant to what had already been stated•
Chairperson Harris said that Section 220•17, Item y• A• was taken
care of by Section 220•16 and should be scratched•
The Planning Commission next discussed Section 22�•17, Item 1•8•
�>` Mr• Peterson said that the Maintenance Code should be more concerned
about the fact that a dwelling has a counter top that half the
2ino2eum is gone and it is open so that water can get in and breed
germs than if Lhe cabinets are 2p square feet or whatever• He
felt the code should address the issue and not address matters of
� construction-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — AUGUST 3, 1977 Page 22
Mr� Boardman suggested that Item B of Section 220•17 be reworded
to, ^Cabinets, shelves and counter/tables be of sound construction •
furnished with surfates that are easily cleanable and that will
not impart any toxic or deleterious effect on food•^
The discussion went on to Section 220•17, Item 1• C•
Mr� BQardman suggested that Item 1•C of Section 220•17 be reworded
to, ^A stove or similar device for cooking food, and a
refrigerator or similar device for the safe storage of food,
shall be properly maintained with all necessary connections for
safe, sanitary, and efficient operation•^
Chairperson Harris indicated that Section 220•17, Items
2{Toilet Facilities}� 3{�avatory Sink}, and Item 4{gathtub
or Shower} are all handled by Section 220•16 and should be
deleted from Section 220•17•
Mr- Bergman left the Meeting at 12:Z9 A•M•
Mr• Boardman indicated to the Planning Commission that he was
aware of what the Commission wanted in regards to the
Residential Maintenance Code• He suggested that he go through
the remainder oF the tode for the next meeting at which time
he would present to the Planning Commission a rewrite of those
items that needed changing•
Chairperson Harris said that the planning Commission would
want to look at Section 22�•43 {Compliance} item by item•
MOTION by Mr� Peterson, seconded by Ms• �abel, that the
Planning Commission continue the Proposed Maintenance Code�
Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
ADJOURFdMENT
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• 6abe1, to adjourn the
August 3, 19??, Planning Commission Meeting• Upon a voice vote,
ail voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Narris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:26 A•M-
Respectfully submitted,
/// � �i��.C��
MaryL'ee Carhill
Recording Secretary
�
�
�
. ► _ _ .�3
PUBLIC HEARINf
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COt�A1ISSI0N
TO WHOM I7 MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of
the Plar+ning Corrmission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at
6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, August 17, 1977 in
the Counci] Chamber at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter:
A request for a Special Use Permit, SP �77-10,
by Jill L Zak, per Fridley City Code, Section
205.i31, 3(A3), to allow a school of gymnastics
and exercise in M-2 zoning (heavy industrial
areas), on the North 24D feet of the Southeast
Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4)
of Section 3, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County
� of Anoka, Minnesota.
Generally located at 8290 Main Street N.E.
� Any and all persons desiring to be heard shail be given an
apportunity at the above stated time and place,
�
Publish: August 3, 1977
August 10, 2977
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PUINNING COMMISSION
1 - � . _��,
. Planning Commission August 2. 1977
Ctty Council
MAILING U5T
`-_. �4
�
SP #�77-10 Jill Zak
�i]T L. Zak
360 97th Avenue N.W.
Apt. 9
Coon Rapids, Mn 55433
Bryan�•Franklin Corporation
900 West County Road D
New Briqhton, Mn 55112
Wil].idm Barbush
528 Univedi� Avenue S.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55414
�
�
J
i
.�
NUMBGR / �17'�v
� APPLICANT'S SIGNATURC
eaa....« 2� n _ � �
CI71f Or TRIDLCY a1TNNESUTA
PLANNIN6 AND ZONING FORbf
r,
. ;G`�j
TYPC OF REQUEST
Rezoning
� c./ Special Use Pcrmit
,3 .
• Telephone Number '7�y�/78 9 v
. . � ti ,� u .�+i � �
PROAERTY OWNE2' S SIG�ATURE_� ,, �' ,au�-�
/lddress��f� �.i�. C� . GcXi � i(:� r�R'.YU� �Sl/�-'
�
Tcslephone Number
Street Location of Property ga 40 ��i'iQiivJ .d7. .
Legal Description of Property �y0,
Approval of Premin-
inary F Final Plat
Streets or Alley
Yacations
Other
Fee�Receipt No. ���p
/� u c v /, �} /7 �z,�
Present Zoning Classificatioa :1n-��isting Use of Propertycb%+-+�v��-t" f.e�aG.�.�
Acreage of Property 7 Describe briefly the proposed zoni g lassification
� /� � ci5. %G.'��� ,� � H `.,
or type of use and improvement propnsed %\ p.cii R w.r�^ �� ��3Y1"✓Y1't.�t�L`�cA�` �
" %1 ' ... �.v // e � O �ia�l . �i , niv. .,� A A �i n .7� 1° % A�e i i+ i .. i ) ' .
Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the sabject site or part of it? yes / no.
Nhat was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of a.Zl residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of thc property, or an e�pl3nation
' given why this is not tlie case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failurc to list the names and addresses of all residents and
property o�+mers of property in question, belongs to Lhe undersigned. .
A sketch of proposed property and structure nmst be dras.n and attached, showing the
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on thc lot.
S. Dimensions of property, proposcd structure; and front and side setUacks.
' 4. Street Names, 5. Location attd use of adjacent existing builJings (irithin 300 feet).
The undersigncd hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this
Application are true and correct. �
DATE %�-%�o' �77 SIGNATURE � �l✓
Af'PLICAN'I')
Datc Filcd Dutc of Ilearing �
Plnnning Commission Approved City Council Approved
(datcs) Denicd (datcs) Ocnicd
� ''
,-'=--=
�. ��_ —
J� �
_.. �
i � I � '' �
Sp#77-10, Jill Zak ,
School of 6ymnastics�& Exercise
i ��._
d3� . � .:,
------- -, .
------ o .�'y9o��,,
� M9��a/ �
.../� . I
------- ..:
.,:.n...T,;r�v,r �.w- — — — — — � �IYi
---------- ��
� I h . � � `
,i • � , f:�•• �� 7
✓ S L.._ �� ' r
3
���
I�
`
6,�0 , �,
��
�
: �
, �
��
' �. _ J .
_ _ � — _ _ _ _ _ �
--- — . .........� �irrr � � "t-- � .
"`-''� E. //f CORNER
SEC. 3
r �
,� I•I!1
��. �. r r
� .
Rwv�f�r/
TN � a�',
4/r.,�.)e •ss
r-v. Mn-��
R �.7•1•7�
� AI`✓'
Rei J.//•tf
�iar / �1�� I
.Pw.�. .••-f3
4
�
i
�
1 �t
._i
4 I
� i
7
D� ��� LOT SPL1 I F1Nt'L1Cl1t 1UIV • , <�:
. � ;4! .
CITY OF FRIDLEY
M �
�' o
.Sa U
� �
�' d .
3 �
i� m •
,a
w�o
m��
+> m td
O U
.� m •.+
N N
� � a
m � �a
O U
aam
°�i�:c
m�
annR�ss: 7l � ��a� H ���c�) e� 5,�/�?
3treet City Zip Code
TELEPiIONE # 5 7/ ? �,� �
gome Buainess
••1'�' � ��' I•
. �i� \ �
ADDRESS(ES
's Name
Lot Split '>,_(•r'}�'
Date Piled: (�
Fee:$�LQ�eceipt � ',4�)8/L�;
Council Action:Da+e -
RFI�IARKS: _ _ f
TELEPHONE #(S)
Home Buainess
Property Location on Street ' 1 ,
or Esact Street Addrese (IF ANY))���fz c✓Cta,J •V�� �� �,���� �
Legal Description of Property,: � (��,,,t
,` #��7 •ce%� of� � r�v
�i`.�'.�7 LOT �fT fF � �4 � � F � �----- • _
Beason £or Lot Split: .
sq. Tt.
Clas
The undexsigned hereby declares that all the facts and
rep�esentaiions atated in this application are true and
eorrect. /'� /�
DATE: G �rY SIGNATUFtE �-�Ctr� `/L-tE-G�-''��
BELOSJ FOR CIfiY IISF ONLY (See reverse side for additional inatructione
CHECICBD BY STAFF DATE
ReIDRrks: . . • _'
� PI,ANNING COMNSI5SION: Date of Consideration -
Itemurks:
CITY COiTNCIL: Date of Conaideration -
xemerks: _ _ . .
� v �
'� L
�D �� --o
-'3^ � o
V �- �
l�` i �.� i
�' O
o ,,,.r �.=
"CS � ��
d Q �ry
"6 �
� � ��
� � � o
a •
�i �� �.�
N 'c^ '
a-, -s -o
_..-
e f �-�-�
0
J G� �
0 d C ^N
C . � —T O
T� L .
T � 'v�
0
.� ° � Q
Z \`M��
. -s>�
�
r. . �dF-.
. Z
O
.�
.z
'�
3
� J�.
' /asa�1
�, 'Co
--a �`
er
� o
�
� ct
° I
d
�
�
s
0
� ^
�J "
0
u
V
O
r
r
�
z�bZ
' �0 Dp
V
a
- 1S'8f
�
1
1
t
�
�
C1 '
ct1. 1
«�
v�
�� a1
t
\�,j�
� I
�
�
�
: -�1��5- ���
,�
��
��
P
��
sF
i,l�.
51 'I t
A
�[\ M
' _;6ta_
U.O4.
�----.i'L9 ---"
--- _:cz�----
�
er
_r •
� .
d od�
� e
a o .
�
��
t� ��c
C'��
� l�
f� ------- ----- ----
� r
h � .
: �,�. r /Y-�Q�% �'
�;� � ' 'a/.�rY!�._ J
,�� ` —b6'o8—
,� . - .
��
�I
�
�
0
G
�
d
s
�
�
Z
�3
�
�
�
I� �
d-
a/-+
��
( e
�
�
0
�
� 'Q
s�
c�
�
�c°s �
f
�
�
�i
.-+-
C
o.
�
�
�
�
O
�
d
O
a
�
U
�, �
�
��
�
�
. �
d
p-4
� �`r cr �
a .>_ -�.
�-a cs �
o -9 ° L
�_�' d �_
� � �
�°� o
t
-d ^ y
O � o
7-�Q -f-���--
�
d-� ��_
�_ d
V . �
� � L� �
� � �-
o. �
s� o y
c<-, � o,
� ----
�� � d
�
�-� L+�'
c-�� 0 11- C
L --+-
. �� d Y-.--��
E�yIIA=
ar m �
�aKi6
���
��
���
�;�
O 3 �'
�+� m
.+
w a�s o
� m��
+�m ca
O�-�-I m � �.�i
N H
a m � m
N O U
i W O � •.�1
Id�w' m�
�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPLICANT:� �ro,..�Y fZc i�/
ADIIRESS: /D� a/ `'�%.vr v� Iv /1. �S'r13__�
Street City Zip Code
TELEPHONE # S s�
�e Business
� �o�mx owx�(s),jZo/- � �- r��G�.�p
nnD�ss(Es
TELF.YHONE #(s
:, l�:sme
Lot Spli{: # 1�J- !' `i
Date Filed:
Fee:$=-!'�'�Receipt x4
Council Action:Date
REMARKB:
Zip
Street City ' Zip Code
Property Location o.n Street
or Exact Street Address (IF ANY)
Busi.ness
Reason for Lot Split: -
�� u / � L I« -iz- � �r'! l� � /� z ..a � . -�-�r �
�y {S 7L�r rcr� N �� L�/f �`cs Nr�l � dcr-� c-s-v /1._t,ti.
,� r, .. S4•
Present Zoning CZas
The�underaigned hereliy declares that all the facts and
representations atated in thia application are true and
correct.
DATE:
BEI,OW FOR CI7'Y IISE ONLY
(SeB reverse side for additionfxl instructions;
CHGCI:ED BY STAFF DATE
' Remarks• • __
�LANNING COtM1ISSI0N: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration -
' Aemarka:
r�7
-i 1
,1 � .
( \ \
F'_. . JU
�>s �
LO� i2 ,6�OCK1, MIi0.1AN H1�lS AOD\T10N/ �F/
�u i �oa
179�bb / u� _o. !
�` �00�00 �` � �Q"�^�/ 'l9.bb \
CA
I.LINE 1p71, l6 aKl, MAR H�LLS Z ! �C�Q�j/ 5O0} g�OKg 3f2y� �
b0
�
'A
�
�r
DOC z� 3398C
� j js
` AGE
i / i D
/� = �/ - o �2 --- �
� �j
I rl Y! u n
I 7 , � �
9I
I oi J I
�� N I
ly o
�
� J �I
I �- I� �
� I,fo
- - 1-1__ I 9
� iN3 3
43 39 i3v'
� �� — �jZ.ND — AVENUE N E-_
,,,... . , , ,
� . ;..:.,�� -. -., .. .r, . �.� .._�.:
. . ^ `7-�.-_-.i^. '-'i . Si'T
�
��' -�'l�,0.'�1 'kv"n 53'.a-�_'
e
. _` "_ _' . . �
„a. . .
AnOka Count
The wesi 100.00 feet cf Lo[ :, Olock 1, F1aHan Hflls :econd Addition. togeth!r wi[c 'hat part of tne wes
I00.00 ieet of LoC 12, Blccw :'"3��a� Nilis �dd�tian. an file in the offlce o` t�c �p�nty �e<order, Y+
�.ianesoGa; as Cocu��.e�[ Aw�er
Mimresota:as Docurient 'lu��.ber 45i211, °ook BNO 'r:9e :2:• �u�jeci to a vttlity and Craine9e easenent over t�e a ove
described properties, on file �n t�e affice'of tne tcur,!y RecorEer, Anoka f,ounty .
339804.
��8.
Let 1. B�ock 1, ��arian hilis Second Add{tion, enceDt �he west 100.D�eCeeaQ':e�eP,a =oAnfherMinneso[at par
of Lot 32, Blo<k 1.Narian Pi11s +4�i[ien.6n filx in�th� of!ia a` tne CountY v,�nneso.a,
eass�^ent ove e�hesa�cve descr�bedPproirert�es,�ontfile Wintthe ot�f��eeofLtYe Cowt9 P.ecoraer,aAnoka�Lwn�a draiaa�e
Oocument f:um6er 3?39L9 .
�#
��
; :t�
�
�I
t-
�
. _. :S9
Ordinance No
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTIN6 CHAPTER 214 ENTI7tED SI&N5, AND REPEALING
PRIOR CNAPTER 214 ENTI7LED SIGNS AND BILlBOARDS
The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 214,01 PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the general PURPOSE
welfare, health, safety and order within the City of Fridley through
the establishment of a comprehensive artd impartia7 series of standards,
regulations and procedures governing the erection, use and/or display
of devices, signs ar symbols serving as a visual communicative media
to persons situated within or upon public right of ways or properties.
The provisions of this ctiapter are intended to encourage creativity,
a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for ef-
fective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities
on the part of those designing, disp7aying, or otherwise utilizing
needed comnunicative media of the types regulated by this chapter;
while at the same tirne, assuring that the public hea7th and welfare
is not endangered.
SECTION 274.02 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shal] apply in the interpretation and DEFINITIONS
and application of this chapter and the following words and
terms wherever they occur in this chapter are defined as foll'ows:
1, ABANDONED SIGN means a sign which no longer correctly directs
or exhorts any person, advertises a bona fide business, lessor, ,
owner, product or activity conducted or product available on
the premises where such sign is displayed.
2, ACCESSORY USE means a use which is subordinante to the principle
use being made of a parcel of land. Exar�ples: Identification sign,
off-street loading, telephone booth, etc.
3. ADVERTISING SIGN means a sign which is used to advertise products,
goods or serviceso
4. AUDRESS SIGN means a sign with identification numbers only,
whether written or in numerical form.
5. ALTERATION refers to any major chanse to a sign, excluding
routine maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing
sign.
b. AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN means a sign which identifies the
name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple
residential compiex, or a business area.
� 7. BANNERS AND PENNAN7S means attention getting devices of paper,
tloth, or plastic like consistency and which are of a temporary
nature (including small ptastic flags, grand opening signs, or
special announcements}.
8. BENCH SI6N means a siqn which is affixed to a bench, such as
a bus stopo
-�
Ordinance No.
�y�
9. BILLBOARD means an advertisinq sign which direets attention DEFINITIONS
to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment, not related
� to the premises at which the sign is iocated, or to a business,
cormwdity, service or entertainment which is conducted, sold
• or offered eisewhere than on the premises of which the sign is
located.
'tQ. CAP70PY means a roof-like structure projecting over any
entrance of a store, building or ptace of assembly.
11. CHRN&EABLE COPY SIGN (MANUAL) means a sign which copy is
changed manually in a fi-eld,i.e., reader boards with changeable
letters or chanqeable pictorial paneis.
12. CMANGEABLE COPY SIGN (AUTOMA7IC) means a sign such as an
electronically or electrically controlled time, temperature
and date sign message center or reader board, where different
copy changes are shown on the same lamp bank.
13. CONSTRUCTION SIGP� means a sign placed at a construction site,
identifying the project or the name of the architect, engineer,
contractor, financier or other involved parties.
14. DIRECTIONAL SIGN means a sign erected on public or private
property which bears the address and/or neme of a business,
institution, church, or other use or activity, plus directianal
arrow of information on locaYion.
� T5. DI57RICT refers to a specific zoning district as defined
in the Fridley Zoning Ordinance.
]6. Fl.A5HIN6 SIGN means an illuminated sign which contains
intermittent lights br exhibits noticeable changes in color
or light intensity.
17. FREE STANDING SIGN means a sign which is securely attached
to the ground and not affixed to any part of any ott�er structure.
18. GOVERNMEN7AL SIGN means a sign which is erected by a govern-
mental unit for the pupose of directin9 or guiding traffic or
other public information.
19. IDENTIFICATION SIGN means a sign which states the name or
address or both of the occupant or occupants of the lot or
building wnere the sign is placed.
20. ILLUMINATED SIGN means a sign which is illuminated by an
artificial light source.
2]. INFORh1ATI0N SIGN means a sign giving information to
employees, visitors, or deliuery vehicles, but containing no
advertising or identificationa
� 22. INSTITUTIQNAL.SIGNS means a sign or bulletin board which
identifies the name and other characteristics of a pubtic or
private 'institution on site where the sign is located.
�-----�
Ordinance No.
; _ -���
23. MOTION SIGN means a sign which revolves, rotates, has DEFINITIONS
moving parts, or gives the illusion of motion.
� ��4. NON-CONFORMING SI6N means a sign which lawfully existed
pMior to the adoption of this ordinance, but does not conform
to the newly enacted requirements of this ordinance.
25. FERtdANENT SIGN means a sign which is intended to be used
for an Tndefinite period of time.
26. PORTABLE SI6N means a sign so designed as to be movabie
fran one location to another and which is not permanently
attached to'the ground, sales display device, or structure.
27. PORTA-PpNEL means a l0 foot by 20 foot, back to back,
mobile advertising device, mounted on wheels and used for
commercia7 as we71 as civic promotions,
28. PROJECTING SIGN means a sign, other than a waiT sign,
which �s attached to any projectsfrom a bui]ding structure.
29. READER BOARD denotes a changeable copy sign.
30. ROOF SIGN means a sign which is erected, constructed, or
attached wholly or in part, above the roof of a building, except
Nhere the roof is an extended facade.
31. RUMMA6E/fARAGE SALE SIGN means a temporary sign which
� advertises or directs the public to an infrequent sale af
general)y used merchandise sold from a private"residence.
32. SI6N means a lettered board, or other display, and its
support structure, used to advertise, direct, identify, inform,
or convey a message to one who views it.
33. SIGN AREA means the tota] area of the sign, includinq �he
border and the surface which bears the advertisement, or in the
case of inessages, figures, or sybols attached, directed to any
part of the building, that area which is included in the smailest
rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure,
or s,ymbol displayed thereon� The stipulated maxim sign area for
a free standing sign refers to a single facing.
34. SIGN 57RUC7l1RE means any structure which supports, or is
tapable of supporting, any sign. Said definitian shall not include
a building to which the sign is attachede
35. SHOPPING CENTER/MULTIPLE USE BUILDING means a building planned
and deveioped for muitipie occupancy use as canmercial or industrial
enterprise.
36. TEMPORARY SIGN means any sign, banner, pennant, vatance, or
advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, or
eardboard wallboard, �r other light materials with or without frames;
� intended to be displayed for a 7imited period of time oniy.
37. WALL SIGN means a sign which is affixed to the wall of any building.
�
�
Ordinance No.
��� �
�
38. WALL GRAPHICS means a graphic design or decorative mural DEFINI7IONS
not intended for identification or advertising purposes, which
is painted directly on an exterior wall surface.
39. WINOOW SIGN means a sign installed inside a window for the
purposes of viewing from outside tfie premises. This term does not
inClude merchandise located in a window.
40. UNLAWFli! SIGN means a sign which is in conflict with this
ordinance or which the administrator may declare as unlawful if
it becomes dangerous to Lhe pubTic safety by reason of dilapidation
or abandonment of a sign for which a permit required under a
previous ordinance was not obtained.
SECTION 2i4.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS
7he following provisions 214.031 - 214.043 shall apply in
all Districts. .
SECTION 274.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DI57RICTS
1. Permanent signs other than Governmental signs erected
or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or
upon any public easement.
2. Signs or wall graphics that contain words or pictures of
obscerte, pornographic or immoral character, or that contain
untruthful advertising.
3. Signs painted directiy on buildings.
4. Portabie signs (except for those provided for under
"Uses Permitted in All Toning).
5. Signs which resemble an official traffic sign or signal
or bears the words "stop, go, slow" or similar words used for
traffic control ( exceptfor directional signs on private
property).
6. Signs which by reason of size, location, movement, content,
co)oring, or manner of il7umination, may be confused with a
traffic control sign, signal, or device, or the light of an
ertrergency or read equipment vehicle, or which hide from view
any traffic, street sign, signal or device.
7. Projecting signs.
8. Motion signs.
GENERAL PROVISIOP�S
. . E
j
t
i
SI6NS '
PROHIBITEO IN
ALL DISTRICTS
9. Illuminated _sign which changes in either color or in intensity of
light or is animated, or has flashing or intermittent lights.
10. Advertising signs (except window signs, allowed only in C-1,
� C-2, CR1, CR2, C1S and C2S Zoning District, or franchise trademarks
pertinent to the business or signs allowed urtder Section 215.05
of this ordinance.)
��
�
Ordinance No,
• , ,,
: y�a
11. Signs located within corner setback requirements, Section
205.154 (3},
T2, Roof signs.
13. Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices,
�intluding any sources of light which change in intensity.
i3:--Por;a-r^anels.
�T �,
SECTION 214.037 SIGNS AlLO�JED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMITS
l.. Manual and/ or automatic changeable signs would be
allowed in alt districts, except R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4
Districts, and then only with the issuance of a special
use permit, subject to the conditions of the specific
Zoning District requirments (Section 214.05 of this
ordinance).
SECTION 214.032 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS
Z. Address Signs: Each dwelling, business, or building
must have a minimum of one address sign, minimun of 3 1/2"
high, maxim;nn of 18" high, illuminated or reflective,
attached to the dwelling and visible from public right-
of-way. If the attached address sign cannot be visible
from the public right-of-way, the address must be either
on the curb or on the mailbox.
2. Bench Signs; To be permitted on7y at bus stops;
cannot be any larger than, or extend beyond, any portion
of the bench.
3. United States Flag: Follow Title 36, Section 173-378
of the United States Code, State Flag, Corporate Flag.
4. Directional Sign� iPublic 3 Private)
(a) Maximum four (4} square feet per facing;
(b) Minimum ten (10) feet from 3treet right-of-way;
(c) Except that a sign directing the pubtic to a hospital
�y be a maximum of twenty-four (24) square feet in area.
5. Institutional Signs:
(a) Maximum twenty- four (24) square feet;
(b) 14i�imum ten (10) feet from street right-of-way;
i(c) Except a hospitalemergenc.Y sign which is tocated
on the premises may be one nundred (100) square feet in
� area.
SIGNS ALLOWED WTTH
SPECIAL USE PERMITS
$IGNS PERMITTED IN
ALL DIS7RICTS
ADDRESS SIGNS
BENCH SIGNS
UNITED STATES
FLAG
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
INSTITUTIONAL
SIGNS
—�
�
�
QrGi�ance No.
6. Area Identification Signs: (see individual district
regu7ations).
7. Standard Safety Identification Signage as used by public
utilities, highway departments, etc.
8. Temporary Signs:
(A) Construction
- : „
. . -S`:7
TEMPORARY SIGNS
(i) Developments: Temporary construction signs may
may be erected for the purpose of promoting a project
of ten (10) or more residential dwe7ling units, ten (1Q)
or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings,
or a business. - NEW
�a) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet �nCONSTRUCTTON
area;
(b) One (7) sign per street iroratage;
(c) Sign shali be removed when project is completed;
(d) Sign shall not be located closer than 100 hundred
(100) feet to an existing building structure outside
of the developnent.
{2) individual Lots or Buildings:
(a) 5ign shall not exceed (6) square feet in area;
(b} One (1) sign per street frontage;
(cj Sign will be removed upon completion.
(B) Reai Estate Signs
(1) Devetopments: Temporary real estate signs may
be erected for the purpose of selling or promoting
a project of ten (10) or more residentiai dwelling units,
ten (10) or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple
dwellings, or a businesso
(a) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in
area;
(b) One (1) sign per street frontage;
(c) Sign shall be removed when project is ninety-
five (95) percent campleted, sold or leased;
RFAL ESTATE
SIGNS
(d) Sign shall not he located closer than one hundred
� (100) feet to an existing building structure outside of
the development.
(2) Individual Lots or Buildings:
� _ o.�
Ordinance No.
(a) Sign sha71 not exceed six {6j square feet in area;
(b) One (1) sign per street frontage;
(c) Extra "apen house" signs to be allowed only during
day of open house;
(d} Sign will be removed within five (5} days foTlowing
sale or lease.
C. Political Signs:
(7) Maximum size shall not exceed 32 square feet;
(2) Signs shall not be erected before closing of filing date;
(3) Signs shalT be removed within five (5) days follorring
the election;
(�) A fifteen ($15.00) deposit will be deposited with the
City prior to the erection of signs and retained until the
signs are removed. If signs are not removed, the deposit
will 6e used to defray the cost of removal. Any additional
cost wi77 be bil7ed to the party posting the original deposit.
(5) Any political sign larger than 3 square feet must be
placed 3 feet from public right-of-way.
D. Garage or Rummage Sale Signs:
(1) Maximum size three (3) square feet;
(2) Must be removed within three (3) days following end of
sale.
(3j If not removed, removal costs will be levied against the
occupant at the address of tbe advertised sa7e.
�
'�h� ��.�.�
POLI7ICAL SIGNS
GARAGE OR
RUMMAGE SALE
SIGNS
E. Banners or Pennants cammemorating a special event not connected BAN(vERS &
with a business (such as Fridley '49'er Oays). Banners or PENNANTS
pennants for businesses wili b� ailowed for grand openings of
business only for a ten day maximum period.
SECTION 214v04 DTSTRICT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to those signs permitted in all districts, the '
following signs are permitted in each specific district and
shall be regulated as to size, location and character accord-
9ng to the requirenents herein set forth:
DISTRIC7
REQUIREMENTS
�it�
�
Ordinance No.
SECTION 214.041 SIZES, SETBACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.FOR R-1, R-2, and R-2A
(a) Area Identification Sign
i. One (1) sign per developrt�nt.
2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet.
3. Minimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way.
SECTION 214.042 SIZES, SETBACKS AND OTNER REQUIREMENTS FOR R-3 and R-3A
(a) Area Identification Sign �
i. Qne (1) sign per development '.
2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet.
3. Minimum ten (10) feet from pu6lic right-of-way.
(b) Vacancy Signs
� 1. Maximum three (3j square feet in area.
2• :Minimam ten (10} Feet from public right-of-way.
SECTION 274.043 SIZES SETBACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR R-4
� (aj Area Identificatian Sign
1. One (1) sign per development.
2. Maximum size twenty-four (24} square feet.
3. Minimum ten (lp) feet from public right-of-way.
IZ � . ,�,:
GIil7
(a) Area Identification Sign
1, One (1) sign per development
(b) Free Standing Signs
1. One (1) per street frontage.
2, Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development.
3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above lot grade.
4, Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to
firiished 9round level.
5. Minimum ten (10} feet from property line or driver.�ay.
��
R-1, R-2, R-2A
AEQUIREMEN7S
R-3 and R-3A
REQUIREMENTS
R-4 REQUIREMENTS
C-1, C-2, CR-1,
CR-2 REQUIREMENTS
�
�
Ordinance No
(c) Nindow Signage
i. forty (4�j percent of window area, exciuding merchandise.
(d) Wall Signs
1. Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root
of the waii area on which the sign is to be placed.
(e} Gas Stations
1, Gas"price signs are allowed only as an integral part of
the identification sign or pump island,
SECTION 214.045 SIZES, SETBACKS AND 07HEa REQUIREMENTS FOR C 1S and C 2S
(a) Area Identification Sign
1. One (1) area identification sign allowed per development.
(b) Free Standing Signs
l.
2.
One sign per street frontage,
Eighty (80) square feet per development
3. Maximum height twenty-five (25} feet above grade.
4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign
to finished ground level.
5. Minimum ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway.
(c) Window Signage
1. Forty (4Q} percent of window area, excluding rt�rchandise.
(d} Wall Signs
1. Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root
of the waii area on which the sign is to be placed.
SECTION 214.046 SIZES, SETBACKS, AND OTHER RE UIREMENTS FOR M-1 M-2
(a} Free Standing Sign
1. One (T) free standing sign per building of multiple use
buildingo
2
3.
Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development.
Maximwn height twenty-five (25) feet from grade.
4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from 6oitom of sign to
finished ground level.
1�
C-1S and C-2S
REQUIREMENTS
0
M-1 and M-2
REQUIREMENTS
�—��
�
��
�
Ordinance No.
(b) Wall Sign
1. Maximum two (2) wall signs per business allowed on
different walls.
: 4���
2. Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times tfie square root
of the wall area on which the sign is to be placed.
SECTION 214.047 P AND PQ DIS7RIC7S
Sign requirements in P and PD areas wou7d be controlled by
the City Council when the development is planned.
SECTION 214.048 SHOPPING CENTER/MULTIPLE USE BUILOINGS
(a) Within sixty days (60) of the adoption of this code,
all owners of shopping centers and multiple use buildings
of three or more businesses, must submit a comprehensive
sign plan for their center or buildin9 to the Zoning
Administrator for approval.
(b} All future permits within the shopping center and
multiple use building areas shall conform to the conditions
of the sign pian and may be subject to conditions other than
those in the district regulations in order to promote a
uniform combination of si9n.,
SECTION 214.05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
l. Permits
(a) Before a sign may be displayed in the City of Fridley,
the owner or lessee of the premises on which the sign is
located shall file application with the City Zoning
Administrator for permission to display such sign. Permits
are required for all existing, new,. relocated, modified or
redesigned signs except those specifically exempt under
Section 214e07 - 214.071 inclusive,
(b) The issuance of a permit may aTso be subject to additional
conditions in order to promote a more reasonable.:topibination
of signs and to promote conformity with the character'and uses
of adjoining property, The conditions will be subject to
the discretion of the Zoning Administrator,
(cj Temporary signs erected by a non-profit organization
are not exempt from obtaining a permit for signs, but the
City does waive the fee requirement.
(dj No permit is required under this Section for the
following signs:
1. A window sign.
2. Signs erected by a governmental unit or public school
district. �
P AND PD
DISTRICTS
SHOPPING CENTE
AND MULTIPLE �
BUILDINGS
GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS
PERMITS
�----�
Ordinance No
. 4�
owner of the property which the sign is locaxed, from
-- conforming with the other provisions of this chapter.
6. Maintenance
(a) Every sign shall be maintained in a safe, presentable
good structural material condition at all times.
(b) It shall be deemed a violation of this chapter when
a sign becomes twenty-five (25) percent in rreed of repair. MAINTENANCE
(c) The Zoning Administrator or agents shatl be respons-•
ible for the enforcement of this chapter.
7. Existing Signs
(a) Signs Etigible for °Legal Non-Conforming" Status EXISTING SIGNS
l. My sign located within the City limits on the
date of adoptian of this ordinance which does not
conform with the provisions of this ordinance, is
eligible as a"legal non-conforming" sign and is
permitted, provided it also meets the following
requir�nents: •
� �A. The sign was covered by a sign permit on the
date of the adoption of this ordinance if one was
required under applicable law, or
B. If no sign permit was required under applicable
law for the sign in question, the sign was in all
respects in compliance with applicable law on the
date of the adoption of this ordinance.
(b) Loss of Legal Non-Conforming Status
l. A legal non-conforming sign shall irtunediately lose its
legal non-conforming designation, ift
A. The sign is altered in any way in structure or copy
{except for changeable copy and normal maintenance)
which tends to or makes the sign less in compliance
with the requirements of this ordioance. than it was
before the alterations; or
B. The sign is relocated to a position making it less
;� compliance with the requirements of this ordinance; or
C. The sign is replaced; or
� D. Mhen there is a change in owner, tenant, or lessee,
the legal non-coRforming sign will become illegal and
said sign must be �rought into compliance with the ordinance.
E. When signage becomes fifty (50) percent dilapidated
�
Ordinance No.
or fifty (50) percent in compliance, the remainder
of the signage is to be brought into compliance also.
(c) Abandoned Signs
{a) Except as othenrise provided in this ordinance,
any sign which identifies a business that has stopped
operation for a period of three rtronths or more, ar any
Sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which
no ionger appTies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned.
Permanent signs applicable to a business temporarily
susperided because of a change of ownership, or management
or such a business, shall not be deemed abandoned unless
the property remains vacant for a period of three months
or more. An abandoned sign is prahib�ted and sha71 be
removed by the owner of the sign or the owner of the
premises.
SECTION 215.46 ENFORCEMENT
1. Violations of Code
{a) Any sign that does not comply with the provisions of
this ordinance.
(b) A sign that is a hazard to the safety and welfare of
the public (such as exposed wires, broken g3ass, weak
� support structure, broken pieces of inetal, etc.)
�
2. Notification of Uiolation of Code
(a) If the Zoning Administrator or agents, shall find
that any sign regulated by this ch�pter is unsafe, insecure,
or is a menace to the public; or has been constructed or
erected witnout a permit first being granted to the owner
of the property upon which said sign has been erected, or
is in vioTation of any other provision of this chapter, he
shall give written notice of such violation to the owner
or permit holder thereof. If the owner fails to remove or
alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set
forth in this chapter within ten (TO) calendar days following
receipt of said noLice, such signs may be removed by the
City.. The cost of this removal, including City expenses,
sha11 be as a special assessment against the property upon
which the sign is located.
(b) The Zoning Administrator or his agent may cause any
sign or other advertising structure which is a public
hazard to.be removed summaril,y�• and without not9ce.
(c) l�hen the City sends the notice of vioiation, they will
send a copy to both the permit holder and the landowner,
if they are different.
3. Penalty for Yiolation of Code
�:J
ENFORCEMENT
Ordinance o.
, Q�
� (a) Any violatian of this chapter is a misdemeanor and
is subject to all penalties provided for such violations
under the provisions of Chapter 901 of tbe Fridley City
� Code. Each day the violation continues in existence
shall be deemed a separate violation. Ail signs are
• subject to such penalty for violation of the requirements
of the district vrithin which they are located, even though '
they may not be required by this chapter to pay a fee
or acquire a permit.
4. AppeaTs
(a) To provide for a reasona6le interpretation of this
chapter, a permit applicant who wishes to appea} an
interpretation by the Zoning Administrator or agents,
may file a notice of appeals with the City, and request
a hearing before the Appeals Commission, The Commission
shall hear the appeal and make their recomnendation to
the City CounciT who fias finai action.
SECTION 214.Q6 REPEAL
Old Chapter 214 Signs and Billboards is hereby repealed. REPEAL
� PASSED AND ADOPTED SY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIQLEY THI$
UAY OF , �g77,
MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK - RYIN C. BRUNSELL
First Reading_
Second Reading:
Publish:
��
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
� 44
APP�ALS COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 9, 1977
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 9� iq77, Appeals
Commission meeting to order at 7:36 P.Nf.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Plemel, Kenper, Schnabel, Gabel, Barna
None
Ron Holden, Building Inspector
APPROVr. APP�ALS CONIMISSION MINUTES: JULY 19, 1977
Mr. Barna indicated that the sixth paragraph on Page �
should read, '�Mr. Barna suggested that the City clean up the
rubble on the bottom of Stoneybrook creek,"
Mr. Barna asked Mr. Holden to clarify the statement he had
made in the tenth paragraph on page 5. Mr. Holden corrected the
statement to read, "Mr. Holden indicated that four soil borings
would be required".
MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by
the Appeals Commission Minu+es of July
Upon a voice vote, all voting �e, the
i�ir, Barna, to approve
19, �977, as amende@,
motion carried unanimously.
i. I2EQUEST F08 VARZANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4� B� 7� OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD
REQUIR��SENT P?EC�SSARY ON THE LIVING SIDE OF A D:7ELLING
FROM 10 F��T TO 4 FEET, TO AI.LO!J AN 8 FT BY 20 FT,
ADDITION TO THE B�DROOMS� ON LOTS 28 & 29, BLOCK 23�
HYDL PARK ADDITIOPi (ZON;D R-3A), THE SAME Br�ING
5875 2ND STRuLT N.E„ FRIDLyY, MINNESOTA, (Request by
Rueben Paulson, 5875 2ND Street N. E., Fridley,
Minnesoia 55432}. ,
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by 44r, Plemel, to open the
Public Hearing. Unon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously, The Public Hearing was opened
at �: i�1 P,M.
A1��ALS COt�IISSION MEETING - AUGUST 9, 1977 Pa�e 2
___. �irJ
' A.
i�
C.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT "
PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVFD BY RE9UIRENfENT:
Section 205.053, 4, (B, 1) requiring a 10 foot side yard
setback for living areas in an R-1 Zone,
Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to
maintain a minimun of 2� feet betareen living areas in
adjacent structures and 15 feet bettiveen garages and
living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure
to conflagration of fire. Also to allovr for aesthetically
pleasing.open areas around residential structures.
STATED HARDSHIP:
Our hardship is that ti�re need larger bedrooms to accommodate
retarded children in our house. This is the best area to
add on to. If vre Maincain the 10 foot setback, we can
only enlarge one bedroom.
AIA�III�IISTRATIV� STAFF REVIE`,'!:
The existing house has approximately 5 feet of side yard
setback, rrhich raakes it an existing non-conforming use,
The adjacent apartment building is 32 feet from the
].ot line, The petiiioner wants to enlarge bedrooms to
the rear.
Mr. & Mrs. Rueben Paulson explained to the Appeals Commission
�vhat they planned to do.
Mr. Paulson said that tne addition �irauld be to the rear
of the existing house. He.said that it vrould n�t go over the
property lines.
Mr, Barna asked if the proposed addition ivould be a
continuation of the present side of the house.
Mr. Paulson said that the addition would only make the
house wNider.
Mr. Holden explained that the reason the variance had
indicated an 8 by 20 addition vras at the time of the request
they rreren't exactly sure of the dimensions of the addition.
He explained that the addi�ion t7ould actually be 6 ft x 36 ft.
Pir. Plemel asked if the addition ti�ould be any closer to
the lot Zine.
Mr. Paulson said that it �rould not be any closer to the
lot line.
�
�
�
��
APPEALS CO2R�IISSION M�ETING - AIIGUST 9. 1977 Pa�e 3
Chair��oman Schnabel asked vrhy the Paulson�s had deci d. ,'
' on the six foot figure. �� ��
�: Mr. Paulson said that the six feet would be added onto the
side of the house that contained the bedrooms. .He said that
two bedrooms �vould be enlarged. He said that the third bedroom •
wot�.Zd resu2t in an extra long bedroom, that they planned to
split into ttivo bedrooms, thereby creating four bedrooms in their
house�
Ms. Gabel asked if there tivould be any support beam problems.
Mr. Paulson sai.d that because the house had been added onto
' a number of times, that actuall.y the ira].Zs wQre very strong.
Mr. Plemel asked if rir. Paulson tiaould finish the. �ho1e
house in siding. It �ras explained, and shorm by a.picture, that
part of the house rras stucco and part �uas siding.
Mr. Paulson said that he would put the same siding on the
entire house.
Chair�roman Schnabel asked if the Paulson's had applied for
the same type of construction in 19'75�
Mrs� Paulson said that they had applied for a variance to
add on to the front portion of the house.
� The Appeals Conaission asked saveral questions regarding
the plans they had before then.
Mr. & 2drs. Paulson ans�vered the questions satisfactorily.
Chairv�roman Schnabel asked rrhy the alley behind the
Pau2son's house vras not naintai.ned.
rir. Holden explained that the city maintained blacktop
alleys. That particular alley �°ras not blacktopped.
Chairtivoman Schnabel asked rvhen the City determined v�lzether
or not to blacktop aa�alley.
Mr. Holden said that the people would have to petition.
Chair«oman Schnabel asked Mr. Paulson r�hen he planned
to start construction.
Mr. P aulson indicated that he �lanted to start the
construction as soon as possible. He said that possibly the
first part of Septeaber.
Mr. Plemel asked if Mr. Paulson would do the rrork himself.
� Mr. Paulson said that he mould do the work himseZf.
�._._.., ��f
APP�ALS COAif4ISSI0P7 t�Ii.�TI�1G - AUGUST 9, 1997 Pa�e 4
Chairvroman Schnabel indicated that one of the probZems
�uld be that it vrould have to go to City Council because it
vias an R-3 Zoned lot.
Mr. Holden said that t4r. Sobiech and Mr. Clark had
determined that since the lot Has an R-1 use and was not
an R-3, it should be treated as an R-1 lot. He said it
would 6e up to the Commission as to vrhat they v�anted to do.
Mr. Barna felt that as long as 5taff had determined
that it couZd be handled by the Appeals Commission, he said
thai the Co�mission should act upott the request.
Chairwoman Schnabel said that the Appeals Commission
would handle the request as an R-1 zoned lot.
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that if the Commission
granted'abproval o£ the variance they v�ould "grandfather" in
the existing non-coniorming use because the house had been
built before the setbacks ��ere established by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Chairrroman Schnabel said that the apartment building r•�as
almost 32 feet rolus hir. Paulson�s 5 feet, made 37feet 1vhich
Nould be ample distance beti�reen the structures.
Chairrroman Schnabel said that the basic concern in
maintaining setbacks was ta allow room for emergency equipraent.
Nir. Paulson said that Laith the first addition he had put
on the house he had improved the aapearance of the house. He
said that rrith the addition of the proroosed, the appearance of
the house lvould be inproved even more.
MOTIOH by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms, Gabel, to close
the Public Hearing. IIpon a voice vate,.all voting aye, the
motion carrie3 unanimously. The Public Hearing �vas closed
at 7:58 P.M.
Ms. Gabe2 said that she �vas in favor of anyone making
any inprovements in Hyde Park. She thought the renuest ivas
reasonable, rrould upgrade tke property as 1�re11 as the area,
aztd that there would still be 37 feet bet�veen structures.
�
u
�
, �A]?pEALS COP��Q�fISSION ME�TING - AUGUST 9� 1977 Pa�e 5
' MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr, Barna� that the - ��
Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of �
� section 205.053, 4, B, i, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce
the minimum side yard requirement necessary on the living side
of a drrelling from 10 feet to 4 feet, to allorr a 6 ft x 36 ft
additian to the be@rooms, on Lots 2$ & Z9, Block 23, Hyde Park
(zoned R-3A), the same being 5875 2nd Street N.B., Fridley,
Minnesota; and to 17grandfather" in the existing non- ,
conforming structure; and that the particular lot in question
be handled as an R-1 zoned lot since it had been interrupted
by Staff that the existinS structure c�as a Single Family D�=relling
thereby making the structure R-1 and should be governed by
' the existing codes for an R-1 lot.
Mr. Holden explained that in the Zoning Code under
Section 205.073, t, ��R-3 Districts��; ana Section 205.063,
the second paragraph of the Introduction, indicated that
R-t lots located in those districts r�ould be handled as R-1
2ots in re�ards to lot areas. It �=ras deternined by Staff that
it rrould also apply to the provisions and requirements of the
lots.
UPON A VOICL VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Chairrroman Schnabel said that the Paulson's �rere Pree
to apply for their Building Permit,
�
2. REQII�T FOR A VARIAAiC� OF SECTION 205.053, t�, 9� FRIDLLi'
CITY COT��, TO R�DUC� THE FROP?T YAR� S�TBACi� FROP•f TIiL
REQUIR�D 35 r��T TO 29 r`F'._.LT, T� AI�LOt'� T:3E COPISTRUCTIOPI
OF A DY!"r�LLING �1D GARAGr.� LQCAT�D Oid LOT 2� BLCCK 1�
HEATI�R HILLS THIRD ADDITICN� THE SA2�f:,' BLING i 1�91 RIC:�. CRE�
DRIVE� FRIDL3Y� I4TNN�SOTA, (Request by Conraercial
Erectors, Inc., 5298 rillmore Street N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota 551�21).
I�OTION by p4r. Kemper, seconded by Nfs. Gabel, to open the Public
Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting a,,ye, the motion carried
unanimously. The Public Hearing rras opened at 8:05 P.M,
Mr. Mike E. 0'Bannon cras present at the meeting.
, - 4�..
. i
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST�, 1977 Page 6
A.
�
C.
ADMIIdISTRATIVE ST1�F%' REPORT
PUBLIC PURPOS�: S�RVED BY R��UTREMENT:
Section 205.053, 1�, A, requiring a front yard setback
of 35 feet. '
Public purpose served is to allorr for off-street parking
without ercroaching on the public right of r�ay. Also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of
signt" encroachnent into the neighbor's front yard.
STATED HARDSHIP:
19e are requesting a 6 foot front yard variance to ailoer
this honse to line up tivith the side of the adjacent
corner house.
ADMINISTRATIIIL ST 4FP REVILtI:
�
A verifyino survey of the adjacent house shorrs it is set
back 25 feet from the property line. This is the only
ixiterior lot on this short block and the road curves to the
South. It is conceivable that ihe corner house on the
we�t (��rhen developed) could be set 12 to 15 feet ahead of
the house in question, if "house lines" only r:ere consider.ed.
Please note that a reversed house plar_ �rould bring the
hause much closer to yhe street. �
Mr. O�Bannon expZained to the Appeals Commission that ��rhen
he nad originally layed-out the house he had set the house
back 35 feet, Ae said ��7hen he event out to stake the house
he noticed that the house t°rould be 8 ieet behind the house on.
I,ot 1, He felt that the genera]. appearance o£ the area and
good construction rrould encourage the plan to have the houses
sometrhat in line. He said that by bringing the house up ei;ht
feet, the nouse �*rould be in Iine tirith the house to the east.
?ie said that the situation of the house on the lot iras also
the best rray to have the house. �ie said that only a small part
of the planned garage i�rould be out of Code,
NIr. 0'Bannor. sai.d that the proposed house z�rould be a
Colonial, stucco house. He also indicated that the house
tivas to be completed by October. He e�lained that he could
have built the house �7ithout a variance� but he felt that
it iroulcin't have looked right.
�
4 ��. APPPl�LS CQAtMISSION MEL"PING - AUGUST R. t 977 Pa�e 8 �
i.
a
Mr. 0'Bannon said that the area located to the rear of
�the lots (rrhere the steep hill rras also located) i:�as ivooded. ."'►
iie indicated that he real.ly rranted to keep that land in its t�
natural state. Therefore, he fel� that that r�ouZd be another
good reason to have a variance to set the houses claser to
the street. .
Ms. Gabel said that rrhen a person :rould buy that house
on that lot, that woo3ed natural area ti�ould be a bi� selling
iiem.
' There �las a brief discussion regardin� the setbaciis of
various houses in the area.
AAJOURPIM��T
hSOTION by 14r. Barr_a, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to adjourn
the �lugust 9, 1977, Appeals Commission meeting. Upon a voice
vote� aJ.l votin�, ayei the motion carried unanimously.
Chairrroman Schnabel declared the meeting adjourned at
8:24 P.z�7.
Respectfully submi-tted,
�V/w��� `'�� _?��
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
:�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANN7NG COt�4fISSIQI MEETING
Auguat 17, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bergoan cal2ed [he August 17, 1977 Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:44 P. M.
ROLL CALL:
Membera Present:
Membexs Absent:
Others Present:
Ber�an� Schnabel, Shea, and Langenfeld
Harris, and Peteraon
Ray Leets
APPROVE PLANNING C014ffSSI0N PffNUTES: AU�[IST 3, 1977:
Ms. Schnabel stated that Ms. Gabel had asked her to make the following correct-
ions to the August 3, 1977 minutes:
Page !0, POth paragraph, to read as follows; "Ms. Gabel said the Sign Com-
mittee believed there was no system for maintenance and without it, there
was no need to write a new ordinance".
Page 13� 7th paragraph to read as follows: "Ms. C�bel indicated that the
Sign Co�ittee felt moat maintenance was good� but where it was bad, it mas
really bad".
Page 14, 9th paragraph to read as follows: "Ma. Gabel indicated that it had
been OBVIOUS to the Sign Project Co�ittee which people were not maintaining
their signs because they were really looking for it".
Mr. Langenfeld requested the following correction be made:
Page 16� 4th paragraph, Line 11: Eliminate the word "the" before the word
"Staff" and substitute the words "top level".
MOTIQI by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the minutes of the
August 3, 1977 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERNff T, SP �77-10, BY JILL L.
ZAK: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3(A3), to allow a school
of gymnastics and exercise in M-2 Zoniag (heavy industrial areas), on
the North 240 feet of the SE 1/4 of the AIE 1/4 of Section 3, the same
being 8290 Main Street N. E.
MOTIQd by Mr, LaagenFeld to open the public hearing, Seconded by Ms. Schnael.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the
publfc hearing opened at 7:50 P. M.
,.
PLANNING CONAffSSION MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977
PAGE 2
Chaixperson Bergman stated the usual procedure is to have City staff advise
them and present background information regarding this request for a special
use permit. Mr. Ber�nan stated the City Planner� Jerrold Boardman, had
called and stated he would be Late for the meeting� however, the Commission
would proceed,
Ms. Jill Zak appeared before the Co�ission regarding her request for a
apecial use permit. She explained her plans for a gyffitastics and exerciae
school and stated it is not possible for her to have this school in co�ercial
office space because her apparatus and equipment require additional ceiling
height.
Ms. Zak stated she plans to lease space in a warehouse building presently
under construction at 8290 Magn Street N. E. for her school of gy�iastics
and exercises. She explained the school would be for both boys and girls
from pre-school and elementary level to junior high and beginning advanced
levels.
Ms. Zak gave the Co�isaion some of her background and stated she is a physi-
cal education teacher and has taught for ten years, Ms. Zak presented a
letter of reco�ndation from Dr. Dean Albertson, Princfpal of Hayes Element-
ary School in Fridley,
MOTIQ�I by Mr. Langenfeld to receive the letter of reco�endation from Dr.
Dean Albertson. Seconded by Ms. Shea. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Schnabel questioned what other types of businesses would be going into
this warehouse building and if they would be a compatible use with the
gy�astics school. She stated her concern was if there will be truck traffic
which might be a potential hazard for children attending the school.
Ms. Zak stated, she believed, children would be dropped off and picked up and
doubted there would be many walking around in the parking lot.
Ms. Sctmabet stated because of the use of that area for heavy industiial, it
mi.ght be a hazard if students would be coming to the school on their bicycles.
Ms. Schnabel questioned the hours of the business. Ms. Zak stated it would
be mainly 4 p. m. to 9 p. m. and probably Saturday mornings.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Ms. Zak if she lmew the approximate area of the building
she would be occapying, in terms of percentages.
Ms. Zak stated she couldn't even guess teow many bays there would be, but that
she would be occupying one bay out of possibly 20.
Mr. Bergman asked if this business preaently exists at another location. Ms.
Zak stated it would be a new business.
Mr. Bergman questioned if washroom facilities would be available. Ms. Zak
stated there are two sets of washrooms in the building and two lunchrooms
and felt this would be satisfactory for her needs.
PLANNIN G COMMISSION MESTING - AUGOST 17, 1977
PAGE 3
Mr. Bergman asked if Ms. Zak had signed a conditional lease. She indicated
that she had not at this time.
Mr. Bergman stated a special use permit is issued to the property owner
rather than the tenant. He was concemed with isauance of a special use
permit to the owner to allow him to establish a use for the interested
tenant, without no co�i.t�nt as yet by the property owner.
Ms. Zak explained the owner, Mr. Brama, was not willing to sign any lease
until the building is completed. She stated she has been talking with him
since last January and he is aware of her intereat in leasing the space.
Ms. Zak atated, as far as a co�itment on her part, she presented a brochure
for her proposed school which has the addrese listed as 8290 Main Street N. E.,
Fridley.
Mr. Bergman stated he could see Ms. Zak's point where she would need a build-
ing with higher ceilings for her school and which is not normally found in
a co�erical building.
Ms. Schnabel stated her only concern would be safety for persons coming to
the building. She felt there might be a slight problem with the restroom
facilities being available, but felt it was something the builder had to
make a determination on and she aysumed he is working with the City inspec-
tor on this.
Mr. LangenfeLd asked if proper exits were being considered in case of fire.
Ms. Zak stated she would check into this to find out the proper route to
take in case of an emergency.
Mr. Langenfeld questioned if the special use permit shouldn't be issued to
the property. He stated, due to the size of the building, there will be
several subdivisions within the building, one of which would be the gy�as-
tics school, and the other p�tions could go induatrial as designated.
Mr. Bergman stated tfie others would be in the intent of the original zoning�
if they are industrial.
Mr. Bergman feLt� in general, the special use permits are treated a little too
loosely and if this is recoffiended for approval, it should be for a specific
use to a particular applicant and for a number of aquare feet. He indicated
he would not favor merely recommending approval with no perimeters on the
intent of their motion.
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out there may be State requirements which Ms. Zak
would have to adhere to as far as her equipment and safetq procedures.
Mr. Dick Yakel stated it was mentioned about restricting the number of square
feet and wondered if Ms. Zak wished to expand her business, if it would be
necessary to obtain another special use permit.
Mr. Bergman felt it would depend on how the motion is worded by the Co�ission.
PLP,NNING COPIIIISSION MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977 PAGE 4
Ms. Schnabel felt by specifying the amount of space, it may be too restrictive.
She stated the special use permit goea to the property and can understand
specifying this apecial use permit being approved for the specific use of
this petitioner and for this type of businesa.
Mr. Bergnan stated Ms. Schnabel's commeutg �y__�be:p�rt�_e_rZt;,_� ��i$-�ase,
--'
however, his comments were to special use permits in general.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he really is not against the proposal for the gymnastics
school. He indicated he was concemed that the building was not even completed
as yet and felt some sort of preliminary plan may have been helpful.
Ms. Zak stated she has seen the building layout a number of times and knows
the square footage and how the equipment will be placed for her particuLar
section.
�_.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would be inperested to lmow where her particular
area would be Iocated within the entire building.
Ms. Schnabel suggested perhaps these types of drawings be available when
this item goes to the City Council.
Ms. Zak explained the construction of the building which is pre-stressed
concrete with block watls to the ceilfng to separate the bays.
Mr. Langenfeld felt perhaps this application was a bit premature since the
building is not� as yet, completed.
Mr. Yakel stated the footinga are in and felt construction would go quite
quickZy.
Mr. Bergnan indicated he would probably feel more comfortable with some plans,
but, on the other hand, the question ie if this type of activity should be
allowed in that particularizoning. He felt the type of materials used in
construction was not pertinent to the request for the special use permit.
Mr. Langenfeld stated, if this was a pre-fab buildtng, the element of safety
enters into the picture.
Mr. Berg�aan stated the building codes will have to be met and that a building
that is safe for a warehouse should be safe for people.
Mr. Bergman questioned for what period of time Ms. Zak planned to sign the
lease and she stated it will probably be for one year. She indicated she
would like more space than what she is staxting with and hopes to expand,
depending on how the business progresses.
Mr. Langenfeld questioned the propoaed opening date and Ms. Zak stated she
would Like to open this fall.
Mr. Allen Mattson wondered why the special use permit couldn`t be issued to
one specific person and if plans didn't materialize, the permit would be
null and void. He stated he could see Ms. Zak`s point where she and the
owner wouldn't want to enter into a contract without knowing if the special
uae permit would be approved.
P7.ANNING COMMISSI�1 MESTING - AUGUST 17� 1977
PAGE 5
Ms. Schnabel stated the code does provide� for instance, if the building is
not completed, the special use permit would lapse and become void.
Ms. Schnahel felt the decision ahould be made on whether or not to allow a
gy�astica and exercise school in an industrial zone.
Mr. Yakel pointed out the hours of the school are nor�lly after work hours
and didn't feel there would he a problem with traffic.
No other persons in the audience spoke for or against this request for a
special use pexmit.
MOTICN by Ms. Schnabel to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Shea.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the
public hearing was closed at 8;33 P. M.
Ms. Schnabel stated her only concern would be the traffic through the area
and safety factor and would have no other problems that she can see, at
thia point, in granting the apecial use perm3t.
Ms. Schnabel stated she assumea the petitioner has looked at many places to
lease for this type of business as it obviously requires certain specifica-
tions which are not easily found in other buildings.
Mr. Bergman atated he agreed with Ms. Schnabel's remarks. He indicated he
was fami.liar with warehousing operations and the amount of traffic going
in aud out really isn't that great. He stated it was interesting to note
the hours of the school are from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. which are primarily
after the hours of the warehousing activity.
Mr. Ber�an pointed out that space on the end oE the building would be in
less conflict with the traffic and felt the property owner might want to
take this into consideration,
MOTIGN by Ms. Sctmabel, seconded by Ms. Shea to recommend approval of
Special Uae Permit, SP 4k77-10,tby the requester ,Till L. Zak, for a special
use of property at 8290 Main Street N. E. for the purpose of a recreational-
commerical facility in an M-2 zone. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld questioned if there should be any other conditions.
Ms. Sctmabel felt the special use permit was issued to Ms. Za& specifically
and for a recreational use and that was all that was necessary.
Mr. $ergman suggested Ma. Zak check with tkte City ataff when this item will
be on the Council's agenda.
RECESS:
Recess called by Chairperson Bergman at 8:40 P. M.
RECONVENED:
Reconvened at 8;45 P. M. Schnabel, Shea, Bergman and Langenfeld were all
preaent.
PLANNING COI�ffSSION MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977
PAGE 6
Mr. Bergman stated he had been asked to call Jerrold Boardman, the City Planner,
and he will be unable to attend the meeting this evening. He stated another
staff inember will be coming to the meetin g to take Mr. Boardman's place,
2. FAT SPLIT REQUEST, L. S. �k77-O8, RQ�I NIELSEN: Split off the Westerly
13� feet of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, subject to street
easements, to make a new building site on the comer of 71-1/2 Way N. E.
and Alden Circle N. E. (Existing house on balance of the lot - 115
71-1/2 Way N. E.):
Mr. Don Nielaen appeared before the Com�i.ssion regarding this request for a
lot split. He stated the application should read that they are requesting
105 feet to be split off the Westerly side of Lot 31.= He'_peinCed=-out Che
ageri�a:.des�e�ption states 130 feet.
Ms. Schnabel questioned if the drawing on Page 28 of the agenda book was
accurate.
Mr. Nielsen stated the lot split line is correct, but isn't in propnrtion
to where the building is located. He pointed out the storage shed has been
removed since the lot was surveyed.
Mr. Nielsen stated he cannot understand the 130 feet, as his intention is
onty to split off 105 feet from the West side of Lot 3!.
Ms. Schnabel questioned when the survey was made and Mr. Nielsen stated in
1973.
Mr. Nielsen stated, since the survey was made, there has been quite a bit
of alteratians.
Mr. Bergman stated the survey should be current for purposes of reviewing
this lot aplit request.
Mr. Ron Nielsen stated the line hae been drawn in on the 1973 survey where
tfiey would like the Lot split to be, that is, 105 feet from the West Iine of
Lot 31. He pointed out the storage shed would be removed.
Ms. Schnabel asked if it was their intentions to construct a home on that
Westerly portion.
Mr. Ron Nielsen stated there will be a home constructed, however, he is in
the process of selling the property for this purpose.and would need the lot
split.
Ms. Sctmabel asked if the property wa8 zoned R-1. Mr. Ron Nielsen stated he
assumes it is single family because that is what ia in the Henderson plat.
In figuring the square footage for this lot, it was pointed out that the
minimum square footage requirements would not be met, therefore, a person
wishing to build on the lot may have to apply for a variance if they are
unable to meet setback requirements and square footage requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSIQQ MEETING - AUGOST 17, 1977 pA� 7
Mr. Don N ielsen stated, when they dedicated 25 feet to the City for the road,
they were informed the City did not want to leave them with an unbuildable
lot.
Ms. Schnabel pointed out that if they split off 110 feet, it would give them
additional aquare footage and closer to the 9,000 square feet required.
Mr. Don Nielsen felt, if thia was done, it would give him hardly any yard at
all.
Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated Mr. Nielsen's concem , however� if the
lot split was approved as he requested, they would be creating an unbuildable
lot. She felt this may have been the reason for the change to L30 feet,
instead of the 105 feet, in order to make thia a buildable Lot.
Mr. Ron Nielsen questioned if the requiremmts would be met if the house faced
on Alden Circle instead of 71-1/2 Way, Ms. Schnabel indicated they could prob-
ably meet setback requirements, but not square footage requirements.
Mr. Bergman felt he had inadequate information to take action this evetting,
He stated there was lack of an up-to-date map and the description, in Mr.
Nielsen's view, is wrong.
Mr. Don Nielsen stated he would like the Co�ission to consider the 105
feet as no one could have built without them giving up the 25 feet for the
road,
Mr. Bergman atated, when he gave the 25 feet, it wasn't necessarily condit-
ioned on anything elae but to provide the necessary accessways for the pro-
perty.
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out if the lot splft was granted and the buyer of the
Iot was aware �fhe��ot was substandard, he felt it would only create a warse
situation.
Ms. Schnabel questioned if it would be agreeable with the applicant to table
this item to the next Commi.ssion meeting ao input can be received from staff
in terms of the 1ot size and come to an understanding of what ia required on
the square footage.
Mr. Don Nielsen stated the sale of �i�e:�property could be subject to the lot
split, however, he did not want to stall the buyer indefinitely.
Mr. Langenfeld indicated the Co�ission could send this to Council without
a reco�endation and have staff supply input at the Council level.
Mr. Ber�ooan felt this could be sent to Council, without a recommendation,
but would vote against it as he felt they had a job to do.
Mr. Tton Nielsen stated, as far as the survey shows, the original plat Lines
for the whole lot are correct. He stated the only prbb�em now is where the
line would go.
PLANNING COMMISSI�I MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977
PA (� 8
Mr. Don Nielsen stated when this was discussed with the staff, it was pointed
out that it would be 105 feet and this figure was written in at that time.
Ms. Schnabe,�: stated she wondered why the staff had changed it to 130 feet
and felt possibly it has something to do with the 25 foet dedication.
Ms, Shea questioned if the 25 £eet is the actual street. Mr. Don Nielsen
stated it may be part of the boulevard area.
I�fr. Bergman stated, he may be getting a little technical, but the map on
Page 28 is not a survey as it is not stamped, no one has si gted it and he
didn't imow where it came from.
Mr, Don N ielsen stated the garage shown on the daawing fs his oLd garage
which has been tom down and he has bought an additional 10 feet to the
East of his lot. He stated the drawing isn't at all like the lot presently
exists and is nat really up to date.
Ms. Schnabel felt, if Mr. Nielsen did not have any stmng objections, it
would probably be better to table this item to the September 14 meeting.
Mr. Don Nielse.n felt this would be acceptable with him.
MOTION by I�fr. Langenfe2d, seconded by Ms, Schnab�l• to table this item to the
next meeting of the Coimnission for the p�npeseinformaeioan�rom staff. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman suggested to Mr, Nfelsen that he meet with Jerry Boardman of
the City staff regarding the discussion this evening and in order to bring
things up to date and clarified for the next meeting.
3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L. S, i�77-09, DE GARDNER REALTY: Split Lot 1, Block 1,
Marion Hills Second Addition, and Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hills, into two
parcels; PARC$L A, The West L00' of Lot 1, Block 1, Marion Hills 2nd
Addition, together with that part of the Weat 100 feet of Lot I2, Block I,
Marion Hills Addn.� on file in the office of the County Recoxder, Anoka
County, Minnesota as Document No. 455241, Bk. 889, Pg, 221. Subject to a
utility and drainage easement over the above described properties as
Document 339804, the same being 1335 52nd Avenue N. E. PARCEL B. Lot 1,
Block 1� Marion Hills 2nd Addition, except the West lOQ feet thereoE, to-
gether with that part of Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hills Addition, on file
as Document 455241, B1.880, Pg. 221, except the West I00' thereof. Sub-
ject to a utility and drainage easement over the above described pro-
perties as Document 339804, the same being 1345 52nd Avenue N. E.
Mr. Allen Mattson, representing DeGardner Realty, appeared before the Coummission
regarding this request for a!ot split.
Mr. Mattson stated this Iand was bought as a tax forfeit piece of property
and the City was contacted to aee if the property could be split into two
buildable lots.
PI,ANNIN G COMMISSIQ�T MEETING - AUGUST 17 � 1977
PAGE 9.
He atated staff advised them that it may have to be platted, iiowever, after
checking with the City Attomey, staff indicated it wouldn't be necessary
to plat the property, but to apply for the lot split.
Mr. Mattson explained the total area is 26,200 square feet and this would be
split into two lots.
Ms. Schnabel questioaed if this lot split would create any problems in terms
of the easement as they cannot build over it,
Mr. Mattson indicated it would not create any problems as they wouldn't be
building over the easement.
Mr. BerBnan questioned +tha:10':EooC eaeemen6,.;i4g,w�chnabel felt it was evid-
ently all part of the whole easement as it is referred to as part of the docu-
ment,
Mr. Langenfeld felt the easement was a continuaCirn� of the drainage and utility
easements.
Mr. Bergman questioned the terrain and Mr. Mattson stated it pitches to the
West. Mr, Bergman stated it would make senae then that this is the continu-
ation of the easement.
MOTIQI by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr, Langenfeld, to reco�end approval of .--
Lot Split �77-09, as requested by DeGardner Realty. Upon a voice vote, a1I
voted, aye, and the motion carried unanimously.
ADDITION TO THE AGII�IDA•
I�qTI0f1 by Ms. Shea, aeconded by Ms, Schnabel to add Item 3A, Receiving Minutes
of the Appeals Commiasion of August 9, 1977 and Item 3B, Receiving Minutes of
the Human Resources Co�ission of August 4, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voted
aye, and the motion carried unanimously.
3A. RECEIVING MIIVUTES OF THE APPEALS COI�AffSSIQ�I MEETING OF AUG[TST 9 1977:
MOTION by Ms. Sclutab�J:, seconded by Ms, Shea to receive the minutes of the
Appeals Coffiission of August 9, 1977. �gtxi--:8edoice vote, all voted aye, and
the motion carried unanimously.
3B. RECEIVING MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGOST 4
1977:
P�TIQd by Ms. Shea, _sesand�d, by:_Plrc- La�gen��ld �fo. u�aaive the.m�nutesi.e�iahe
_. _. ___
Human Resourcea Co�ission of Auguat 4, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voted
aye, and the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Shea stated she would like to btidgatbe�lneoettention of the Council the
co�ents of the Human Resources Co�ission regarding the Liquor Ordinance on
Page 4 of the minutes.
pZL�NNING COMMISSIQ�I MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977
RECESS:
PAC� 10
MOTIQ� by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea_to ca11 a recess. Upon a voice
vote, all voted aye, and the motion carried unanimously. Receased at 9:55 P. M.
REC0.9VENED:
Chairperson Bergman reconvened the meeting at 10:10 P. M. Schnabel, Shea�
Bergman and Langenfeld were present as well as the staff representative,
Ray Leek.
4. REVIEW PROPOSED SI(N ORDINANCE:
MOTIIN by Ms. Shea, secatded by Mr. Langenfeld to table this item until staff
brings in a further report. Upon a voice vote, all voted aye, and the motion
carried unanimously.
5. CQ�iTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTFNANCE CODE:
MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Shea to table this item. Upon a
voice vote, all voted aye, and the motion carried unanimously.
6. PARKS ?ND OPEN SPACE PI,AN:
Mr. Leek stated Mr. Boardman asked him to come this evening to provide further
information on the Parks and Open Space Plan.
Mr. Langenfeld stated the Environmental Quality Co�nission had a very lengthy
discussion on this plan and there was deep concern by the members on the
urgency of accepting it.
He atated they began to review the plan page by page, but didn't get very
far. He indicated the general conclusion of the Co�ission is that past,
present and projected uses of the parks hinges solely on proper definitions.
He stated the Co�mission felt this was a very important document and they
couldu't even consider acceptance at this time until the definitions are
clarified.
Mr. Leek stated� in 1976� the State Legislature passed the Mandatory Land
Planning Act requiri.ng a satisfactory Land Use P2an which means the City
has to update this plan. He atated one element o£ this ia the Comprehen-
sive Parks and Open Space Plan.
Mr. �.eek stated, in order to apply for any fuading, the City must have a
document that is formally approved by the City Council. He felt, if the
plan isn't adopted so that they can make application this year, the City
may lose out on future opportunities. Mr. Leek felt it would be "nip and
tuEk" meetfng the schedule and there is a1,so a period for exchanging this
document with school districts, the county and aurrounding cities for their
coffients.
Mr. Leek i.ndicated the Parks and Open Space Plan is only one element and
there are a multitude of other planning items such as the Critical Areas
Study� Transportation Plan, Housing Plan, etc,
PLANNI[dG CObAfISSI@I MEETING - AUQJST 17, 1977
PAGE !1
Mr. Langenfeld stated he understood the urgency as far as obtaining funding.
He felt they ahould have received the plan sooner and that, if it ia adopted,
it wouldn't be a complete document and would have to be reviewed again.
Mr. Leek stated any planning document has to be reviewed on a continuing
basis. He indicated the primary reason why the plan wasn't given to the
Co�mission sooner was to put together, as carefully a$ they could, what
materia�.s and information the ataff had.
Mr. Leek stated he has his own question ay to how mich time is enough to
review it, but [he question is if the plan is acceptable as a policy docu-
men [ .
Mr. Leek stated the Parks and Recreation Co�ission has met four times on
this document and will be meeting again next Monday night. He stated they
have been working with the Co�ission and checking with the Director to
interpret his input from the Comnission. Mr. Leek atated, he understands,
the Parks and Recreation Co�isaion will reco�end spproval of this plan
to the Planning Commission. He stated there has been a lot of discussion in
reviewing this document and revisions have been made.
Mr. Leek stated the Parks and Open Space Plan is a preliminary document
and was taken to the Commiasions for them to either recommend approval or
not to approve and forward their recommendation to the Planning Co�ission.
Mr. Leek stated the purpose of submitting this to the Plannittg Co�ission
is for them to review the planc:aod take action in the near future. He
stated, it is hoped, this can be submitted to Council in Septeuber.
Ms. Schnabel pointed out there is only one more Planning Commission meeting
before the end of September� and didn't lmow if this was realistic in obtain>
ing their recommendation by September.
Mr. Langenfeld stated the beginning of the "problem" occurred at the Environ-
maital Qnality Co�uission meetin g when the Commission read part of the report
on Page 2 which stated that this plan is a aupplement to the City's Comprehen-
sive Plan and fulfills the mandatory requirements of the parks and recreation
in the City's planning, The Co�.ission felt it was being thrown together to
meet a requirement and obtai.n funds.
Mr. Langenteld then read the definition of a"regional Park". He atated the
Environmental Quality Coffiission suggested a change in that defi.nition.
He indicated it wa$ the Commission's hopes they could at lea8t clarify the
definitions and the rest of the elements would fall into place.
Mr. Leek then presented slides taken in various parts of the metrppolitan area
which showed park design, signing, Landscaping and uaes of parks relating to
placement of tennis courts, tot lots, etc.
Ms. Schnabel stated it seemed the proposal on the existing parks relates to
the ability of the land where the park now exists or to dedicated park area.
PLl�iNING COt�ffSSION MEET7NG - AUGIJST 17, 1977
PAGE 12
Mr. Leek expiained the City is very limited to the a�unt of land they have,
The total area for the City is 10.2 square miles and total park acreage ia
45I acres.
Mr. Leek stated in comment to Mr. Langenfeld's remark that the Environmenta}.
Quality Co�nission felt this document was thrown together in order to obtain
funding, he pointed out that work had begun on this plan over a year and 's fialf
ago before the Mandatory Planning Act was pasaed and before vanies were
available for fundittg. He stated they began putting together materials for
this plan Last apring and at that time, examined what needed to be incorpor-
ated to meet the concems of the Planning Act.
Ms. Schitabel'.asked-whau:.tyge`bE?faAds�the City has received to date.
Mr. Leek stated, to date� the only funds received were for mandatory planning.
Ms. Schnabel asked when they would anticipate any implementation funds.
Mr. Leek stated the deadlines are within two weeks and those agencies to which
they are appiying will make a decision within two months.
He stated, if the plan is adopted, ,the-Citplw��Zwbe'�ti*ogk�pghwfbh the neigh-
borhooda to put together some designs for the parks. Ae indicated this would
be a separate documen[ for each neighborhood.
Mr. Bergman thanked Mr. Leek for his presentation to the Co�ission.
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOUAdI�NT:
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to adjourn. Upon a voice vote,
all voted aye, and the �tion carrfed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned
at 11:12 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
��-v�C.- ���z2ysQ�.�(�eic,
Carole Haddad
Recording Secretary
�
,
,: �i� �
- ; . .
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION
MEETING
AUGUST 4, 1977
MEMBERS PFESENT: Ned Storla, Grace Lynch, Harold Belgum
MEMBERS ABSENl':
OTfIERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
$arbara Sl�ea, David Thiele
,7im Hill, Public Safety Director
xelen Treuenfels, Police Civil Service Commission
pice-Chairpersoa Storla called the meeting to order.at 7;50 p.m.
APPROVE JULY 7, 1977, Hi7tdAN RESOURCES CONAIISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Harold Selgum, to approve the Ju1y 7, 1977, $ucnan
gesources Co�iission minutes as written, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCIISSION OF DISCRTMII3ATION COMPLAINT:
Mr. Storla stated that the Cocwiission was looking for an update on what had tra;�spired
since the last Commission meeting.
At the July 7th meeting, a motion was passed that the chairperson appoint at least
tcoo peop2e (members of the Commission or two interested citizens) to conduct a preliminary
investigation to determine the appropriate course of action the Commission should Cake
in this discrimination complaint. �hat had been done and Ms. Lynch stated that the
�omrnission was recommending that, because the Co�ission had neither the staff nor the
resources for an investigation of this magnitude, Ms. Will should seek the aid of a
private atterney in this matter to expedite the processes.
Ms. Treuenfels stated that when she fiist became a member of the Police Civil Service
Commission, she had talked to peopLe in the Police Department and one oE the first
persons she talked to informed her that there would never be a woman on the police force.
This person had stated that "Mr. Hill would never allow it". Ms, Treuenfels had to:d
this person that Mr. $ill had nothing to say about it, that the Police Civil Service
Commission set the standards. Then, Ms, Treuenfel� was told that Mr. Hill would devise
a physical agility test that no wanan could pass. Ms. Treuenfels had again stated that
Mr. Hill did not have the right to do that. Then, she said, all of a sudden, there was
I3UMAN HESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 4, 1977 PAGE 2
a physical agility test and a woman had flunked it. She stated that she had encountered
so much resistance for so long regarding the police eligibility list that it had made
her very upset. Ms. Treuenfels read excerpts fran Police Civi1 Service Coumission
minutes regarding this.
Mr. B�lgum stated he was uneasy at the position this Commission was getting into of
being a�'court of appeals" for another cocmnission.
�Ms. Lynch stated it was'her personal feeling Chat this Commission did not have the
authority or the legal papers to file an official canplaint of this nature. It shou].d
either be filed 1oca11y or with the State.
Iir. Hill stated that as fax as he was concerned, the issue was settled to his satis-
faction at this time in that the Civil Service Commission had set standards to the
old candidates that the Police Department thought were necessary and desireable'to fill
their moral obligations. They had gone on with the process,where the oId candidates
were given a choice of either retaining their old scores from the Police Department
test or taking a new agility course estahlished by the Civil Service Commission. If
the candidates took the new test, they had their choice of the two scores, which would
obviously be the highest score. Either way, he was satisfied. As far as coming to
the Commission meetings, he concurred that this probably was not the appropriate body
to come to. He said that the State Human Rights Commission had £ull authority to
irxvesti.gate and initi.at-� investigation if they sao; i�l', and he knew that the ctate Human
Rights Co�ission had d.one thi.s and were dcin� chis. ?ie did not L-hink this matter should
have been given to the Human Resources Co���i�sion.
pys. Treuenfels stated thst she fe1C a gr.eat many p:oL-�euns had been cleared up at the
last Civil Service C��ission meetir.g. Mc. Wi11 and one uf the other candidates had
been present at the meeting and both had agreed this was a fair way of handling these
problems, so they did satisfy sane of the problems. They were still going to need some
work done on the standards. The difference between the caomen and the men on those two
tests was too great to think a woman could ever pass. But, she said, this was a
completely separate problem.
Mr. Hill stated that was a different issue. There was no intent in his mind to discrim-
inate against anybody because of disability, sex, or anything. Whether the State did
not make the right reccmmendations or whether they should not have followed those
r-ecommendations, it was a whole separate issue that they wouZd have to address in the
future.
Mr. Treuenfels state3 that the process by which the Civil Service C�ission operated
also came inCo question here. On certification, the Givil Service Coma:ission cerCified
the top three people on a list and the hiring authozity could hire any one of those
three. How they got to be certified and how they were certified was by getting the
highest combined score on the written and oral test. It did not involve the psychological,
medical, or physical agility test. If they fail=d to pass any of the other things after
being certified and before being hired, then their:names were struck from the list.
She stated that the Civi1 Service Commission_now had the oral test as Che last test.
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 4, 19�7 PAGE 3
Mr. Hill stated there had been some communications problems. There had been some
confusion on what previous commissions had wanted and what the new commission wanted, •
but there was no deception intended. The Department had just been following what had
been done before, and they were on a"Iive and learn" process. He stated that he
wo�ld like to know which police oEficer on the force had made the statement that
Ms. Treuenfels had quoted at the beginning of the meeting. That was a totally erroneous
statement and was not his philosophy.
�Ms. Treuenfels stated she did not want to reveal this person's name.
MOTION by Harold Belgum, seconded by Grace Lynch, that the Commissioa reco�end that,
because the C�ission had neither the staff nor the resources for an investigation
of this magnitude, Ms. Wi11 should seek the aid of a private attorney in this matter to
expedite the processes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Ehe motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Selgum stated that he thought it was scandalous how liCtle the public understood
about police work in total. He would welcome any way that the public could become more
intelligent about police business and responsibility. He referred to the burglary
analysis which Mr. Hill had presented to the Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Belgum
wanted to know if any community had tried to do something to make the public more aware
uf this type oE information.
Ms. Treuenfels stated that many communities had a Commariity Service Officer who �as not
a poli.ce officer but was a member of the police department. He was a kinri oi "iniormution-
liaison officer" and could co�unicate more readily with the public. She said that was
something Fridley might want to look into.
MOTION by Harold Belgum, seconded by Grace Lynch, that this Commission recommend to
�ity Council that some kind of overall picture be distributed to all citizens of Fridley,
along with one of the regular mailings, showing the "Analysis of Burglaries" and the
upcoming '�andalism Analysis" to see if they could promote public concern and interest
in this area. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hill stated that he could come up with something in this regard.
DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS:
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Harold Belgum, to receive the proposed ordinance to
establish a Code of Ethics. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unattimoasly.
Mr. Belgum stated that he would like to leave the proposed ordinance as it was.
Ms. Lynch stated that under Section 30.01 Policy, Subdivision 3, she would like the
following to be deleted from the last sentettce; ",.: and by said person's spouse,
children, mother or father."
HUMAN RESOURC�S COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 4, 1977 PAGE 4
Mr. Storla stated that referring to Section 30.01 Policy, Subdivision 3, a1so, he iaould
like to delete only "...children, mother or father" from the last sentence. He said
his reason for making this change was that under the Commonwealth Law, if one spouse
benefitted, the other person benefitted financially also.
UPDATE OF LIQIIOR ORDINANCES:
Ms. Lynch stated these urdinances shonld hace changes made Uecause the ordinances
varied fro� one to another. Some of the sizes in the ordinances were not standard
and should be standardized.
Ms. Lynch stated thaC in Ordinance No. 647, Section 602.07, Subdivision 1, Distance
fran Schools and Churches, the following change should Ue made regarding distance;
"No license sha11 be granted for any place within 600 feet (instead of 300 feeC) of any
public or parochial school or wil-hin 600 feet (instead of 300 feet) of any charch."
Ns. Lynch then referred to Section 602.08, Subdivision 9, Inspection: "Any police
officer or heaith inspector may enter, inspect and search the pxemises of a liceusee
during business hours without a search and seizure warrant and may seize all intoxicating
Iiquors and other evidence of violations found on the licensed pzemises in violation
of this ordinance." She felt this was totally unconstitutional as she got the impression
from the way ±.t was stated that a police officer could enter an3 sea'rch at any *_ime
without a z:arrant.
Mx. Hill stated that wh;t this meant was that if a police officer saa sny vi.olatica,
such as a minar being served or violation �f the Dramsho� I.2w, he had th° righC to
search without u warrant. ile agreed that Che word "inspect" should proY,ably Ue usect
instead of "search".
I3s. Lynch staCed that she felt it was a waste of time for the Commission to try to make
changes in the ordinances as a legal authority should go through and made changes
according to today's standards. The Gommission shou151 only change the distances and
the rest should go to an attorney.
MOTION by Grace LYnch, seconded by �iarold Belgum, that all ordinances dealing with
legal matters be sent to an attorney to updaL-e according to today's staadards. The
distance as far as feet in Ordirance No. 64i, Section 602.07, Subdivision 1, should be
changed from 300 feet to 600 feet. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
OTH�'R BUSSNESS:
Mr. Belgum stated that a new program had been announced called the "Livable CiYies
Program" where a million �ollars had been set aside by the National Endowment for the
Arts. Any city that could come up with iunovative, creative ideas in regard to making
thair city niore livabte would be eligible for this funding. The emphasis of this-
category was upon creativity, energy, and cooperaCive spirit in the public and private
sectors using design to work toward opportunities to xmprove communities.
HUMAh RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 4, 1977 PAGE 5
Mr. $elgum felt that the following elements could somehow be brought together for an
improvement project in the City:
1. Shrinking school population--land and buildings are going to become vacant,
and some intelligent use should be planned for that.
2. Senior citizen population was increasing--there was no special planning
directed toward that.
3. Youth Center--although it had begun, it was not serving the major elements
of the City's youth.
4. Communications problem--about a half a year ago, Mr. Belgvm was instrumental
in raisin� the question of whether the City needed a co�unity newspaper.
The real question was if there was any way communications could be improved
in Fridley.
5. Rzverfront property--at the last Commission meeting, he had gone on record
that he would like the Park Board to explore Che acquisition of the Girl
gcout Ca�p as it was 1itt2e used and contained wonderful river frontage.
Mr. Tlill stated that the City had recently hired a grantsman through the CETA program.
�e stated that Mr. 3elgum might wish to discuss this matter with that person as that
might be a good area in which to start.
Mr. Belgum thanked Dir. Hill for the suggestion.
AATOURNMENT:
MOTION by Harold gelgum, seconded by Grace 7,ynch, to adjourn the meeting at 9;28 p.m.
j7pon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
o�,,�%��'
,���t.�.
Lynne Saba .
gecording Secretary
�
rw
S I G N� I N
k .
,
i' % i�� !;- _,
•�, � �
ADDRESS
��- sa r=a,� il'i.� -�,�L�
/6 � � Z�.v,vs/ „ u � lc �����
r�
/2G- 97 � ?%. � � �
i��t9_9/ f_w..a �fi,�= R�i�,. �
� �.
. , % �, /, j�-, .�
� ,� K ,� .�
ais . ��_ ����
N � �. `� �<
�5 �"
�Q� � --�.
6a�'/ ��fa�t� �'�. ot��
F� 7.�-/ — $�N✓.�.�; .IT - N� C-.
/sra �,� � �./��
/ �So ,�.� .Sx ��
INSTRUCToRS: J311 7ak
Dona Cudo
Schao2 of Gvmnastfcs
Pre-School Gymrwatics
Begineing Gymnastics
Adv. Beginning Gymnasties
Interniediate Gymnastics
Adv. Inter. Gymnastica
Advanced Gymnastics
Ti� NORiF�AST SCHO�L
�
GYMNASTICS
A1�D
EXERCISE
FALL SC}iEDULE
(Sept. 26-Dec. 16)
M-
M -
Th-
W ..
Th-
N -
Th-
t
N
Th-
T
W
. �
(4-6 yrs.)
{4-6 yrs.)
(4-6 yrs.)
(6-10 yrs.)
(11 $ up)
iboys)
(6-10 yra.)
(11 8 up)
(b0ys)
(boys)
8290 Main St. N.E.
Fridley� Minnesota 55432
9t30-i0s30AM
9s30-10s3QAM
9:30-10:30AM
4s00-5s00PM
4s00-5s00PM
4:00-5s00PM
5s00-6:OOPM
5s00-6:OOPM
5s00-6s00PNf
6:15-7s15PM
6:15-7:15PM
6t15-7s15PM
7:30-9s00PM
7 s30.9 s OOPM
aa2.aa .
522.00
522.00
577.50
527.50
$27.50
$27.50
$27.50
327.50
$27.50
527.50
$27.50
540.00
540.00
SATURDAY MORNING OPBN GYM - s 0- s00
Students enroiled fn elass -$1.00 wk.
Others - $2.50�wk.
Schoo�l Qf Exercise
Ex�rciae for Fun ard Fitness T 10s30-I1s30AM 5.15.00
� _Th :ifl:3t�-II:30AM SiS.00
M 7:30-8:30PM 515.00
4uaensize Slimnestics T 9:30-1Oz30AM $15.00
Th 7:30-8:30PM 529.00
--- tio clasaes Nov. 21-25
--- Stefunds available only in extreme situations (unless accident or serious illness)
--- Inquire about discounts '(early regfstration, fan�ily, pzepayment)
QUSS FEE Dl� A� PAYAHLE HY BEGI IHG C.� SECOT� CIASS
ri C7
O
� �
a�
n+"C
��
� O
m �
��
�
p
T
W
b
�
�
� Q � � M
a m � a�s
w Nr r
W N � � � O O
M� � � 4 M�
� me�v�Nw o�i�i�.
4+ (1 �D 1+� 9 N F+�
7 7 F+1�<4�+0
�� (1 ��h p M s 3 n
o. ti� o�<oc�
m a ° .+,� r°-4
� O � G W � 3
m � � X G �
e °c a y m
a
�
9
L7
a
h..
0
w
f�+. � O
p � �
N� '�O
G. W
A
'O �
A h
r S
� d
� �'
� �
x
�-,� �X_ ,�. ;...�
H G'1
o �
S t+ N
F7+� r �
� R1.�OH�7N
� � � �
g��xN
N h+
7cf �1 a
�D sm6i �%3 N a m
Kcyicµf yc�dg3C
fiaa��..m�3`+m�
O � 7 ~ �N etiT4�
m sC+3 �.H �o �
�a�ggM� ���
'G E 3 �• N. � �C
m .. ,+ .y a
�'�°��� o v
3 OtT �w m
� � O
N
�
N
A
S
7
F+
� $M
O
b � m �4 �
�°x��
°+ .�. $ c m
w O O �+ �
9� M 0 � �
$'� �i �i m
� � 4
r m
� �. �
M d �
� �
� N �
7'i+W7
H h �7.
n� � �
►4.. �h+. w
w � w
C w
"� "4 .
�i
�
S
,1p+
M 7 �D •
_�.�.�
�
m r.
�k �0 3 M'�C
K d n �� C C
m i.. e+ u c�i
e+ rn a ..
O � 7 7 � s
e1�� � � O
��ga �a�
� � ��
r� n
a a .�+
N
�
g
A'
ri
�
P
�i d
ti �.
O �
R
O B
� �
�
"�� '° �a
y y~ j O 1
M w b�' '�
$� �� ��.�
r p �. i+ O
M. � 1
mn ��i$�°m�mO� o �� °�►
ff � e+m+ O a A y ��rt+• a p 5 i
o� �� m o�`�� a a,�..
� aa o %... MO Y
�i n� O �-• m o 7 A O. ►+
a�' ��. �"�.���.�.�
4�'[� e=FX71WypA'vv'tl(�/r
F+ 16� W C► O 1+ 4 C
p C � aM1 O c► o m
� a �' o s c...
yp N C
� �+ � S � 'q
F+
r
Cu p R 7�i 4�
� M A H
�
M � � Q 0
IC � H'O
Q � ��
,,. �. �.
r
�►
`C
.. ,:..:x.r�.,-...: �.��,
n
�
�
�
�
y
�
8
M
X
!�
�.
�
�-1 � 9
`� � <
a' r+ oi
F�+ n n
� �
C
M � �
7.t+ ~ �Oi� N A �
�sy.�S�.opp�
� m r.0 �AB �!A
� e �'a m��
m r 1 wrM
� ►+ M N �
M� N L�y t+� ��{ N.
tl 3 W e+ D�C A
A C. 7'�p
►�+fi`+.y �p d.-.
m� y m a.�i��•�
e+ eF m O O M
�'� ��.�+a
a p�+ 01 w W
� O � O Co f1
HQ � d t+W
(� N M y M
wZ: g�
� N.�' W�
!0 7 7
d ip
F+ M
`:
q
M
�
�
n
C
�
S
�
N
a
0
0
N
0
M
�
q
A
�+
O
a
�-1
s
7
,l�Q+�
4
�
»
pn N d� 7 H
9 � 7 � M �
O �� A � � <
�rci c1 A wo�.
A' t+ 0 N f7' C
O O� 7 r Y
3 7 3 eF A N
o ��a� 4
O '6 �F �D X N
'O O `+ H 1p i+ .
�F t+0 MM +i
w e+ 7 O ff A
O t+ ff �+ 7
3 h m �0
�� a� w7
fl Ms
`� w
� n
A
O.
w
G
,
h
N
A
� �
�
m
�
N
X
f+
�
N
M
C
4. ++ C N
O O U
� j� M M
TV Oi� y}+ ••
i� C`rl i0 Q� N N
H u E'�a � ti �E �
N U7 N N Y O S� �
.'� V O� U
G ON 4�M'p �pM
N 3 m w m w m
� .-�i C t y .i � C
� � ,.�i C N O > w
41 U++»+ Cl t.+ N
O m �W .0 V +� N
RI V N N U CL
y �p '�p C G.0 � N
7.cmE`�.«�.acia
N M O U�� L
� g O � F � � ~
tp C O C ip t •
o� o aa ,c
mu�u.+ N-+u
..+.tiw++m �i.rm
x�1p�r a G+�h u
N � Y 'a M {-+ w�p
.ti C C�� y V m
•-1 M M �"1 y M
�.-� N� N N Y Y H
h C y U y� N y
c°� i. uY+i +�i ; c u
N 01 .'A N.-1 E N
3'�a A. C� � OT+ M
. �
w i� V
rry N wy '
.-1 ..� �,i
fo h 'O a
U t H N C
uws w
T x m u.�
� h F1 n1 H N N O�
^� N Q1 O .-1 �-. ,G .ti
j U t�! U G O C N O
� H u o F.°i, .-�i ++ rn .v a�n
H C O,C C�"� .'�1 U X U�r1 '�.
�. O D U O N•-1 7 m a N i.+
� M (n M U O'� Q� 'p N+�I
+> E �V «-i 4[tl FI 41 •.' C
.-1 U N O� V u+�i roy•+ V e-� U�1
O 7 f-� M 7�0 C N 0 N+a �
O 'p . � 'p GE �C O U O .rt �
V w U FI W 5+� N CG N U
.-� M O .-1
� 10 i� M(p � wt wt d.ei
C U w C y N ti 0.� (q 0. vi G,
O+M �6 7 •.a .r O q� m
M y C ti W H O
Z i� E s7�•.� .0 � m � y �C�1 .
r-1 L4 C'J M p, �(A �V i� M T FI
� a av wad >.a�i & wa ms
v��i ia fi C N N�0 E UI � w.X U
,� w-i ..' ..y .ri O��•r� G1 C O N
� .-1 O C d
�U"� V'� A�U'� W LW �W TQF
4+ t 1 O 1 1 O I N 1 m 1
�� � a � ��, � a i o �
w
C
F
ty �-a O C ^�p
y w H w o P .
''�. o a C� a T E .a
'O i� Cf �V U N N w a y-i
�� N N N� i-�Q•t{y t�pM t�,l
'�'� E'3 (0 1-� N+� C. i� U N
ua m�aw �C f0o �m+�+
N 1 H d O E u1 i� �p
� Y � �y C OTi O • .-�i
O t0 0.�r+ O N.-1 .-Ti �
��C � Ni-�L� ry•-1 �
'O Q O ++ .0 V O,C1 ar N
� U � u m��.�c C A�p m
t0 �� L.V Y Ytn M C..�+
C W N N Yf +1 � QJ tp U
Q wQ1 M � 3.G � 4 a ��
FI N.0 y'p ��M M M C
N LT(n t C Cl � tl/ FI M.r�l
u'°10 3�0 v'�i v.�. a`0 rn
3
m •.�+� c ui x m c
y�dom ..amr...
~ c", m.c �C E yyynC' � a, �
C 4.tifn �N C � C (Ow
� OCJ� '�pHx N'�6++ N
M N TM C U i0 � 01 i a
u/ i� Y S 7 M,Y N i �p N
N ry•ri O�F+ O Mq..fi �.+ y
a•V ¢ O N N Q� H C .�
O EE N 1 CE y y N�
N 6'p .-i y.,G .e7t X N G
¢ U w m t7 ++ a a, +-�.�
_.___. ,; <.� s.e!ys�:. .,. - .. �.>.,,. . - .. .:�_.
_ �_:�_[_`_ . . ...,._. .
. . Y _ '_ . . -�._ _
N
N
a
N
Y •
�ry O ?
� '.�
a �
y ia N y
.-1 Ip y Y
'03y E
N O� W y
V G.�" � G
1A O
W
v •a�
m c
91 O N y
O +1 �.+ +`
�-1 N M }+
t1 N 4y+ N
m N G O
y �
aY11
M � ti �
.-1 M
..� i-1 W �
C �yp
ti � C i G
N N 'p � 7 +� C .-�
.�-�
• � Yi�r�i C
o�+ •a�' cm;.,
�+ C Yl QI � N O�
�o E m u �t' � .�i c �'
N N ti �0 y 11 N�
M (0 � y r/ � i` Ny .0
� �+� 17 ; fi �R �
ay.�.�"-�a �'a�•�
� O.w 3 N U'� N
o y w w E w�p
.y i� L W •.0 a'/ y O.
�-I LL+�'O w C Cl N N
M � �-1 '-I O M .�J d
; y � O � M G 4. y
N N W tl1 � d! A
M N N m N N O V N~
N N N�' [7 C! iS1 `N CJ �
r-1 y W O d CI 7 l fA
m c�i o mF" i�, cYw� . a
o`0oia ti �it-L� °o°rpo"g"�
.i F F O• w 0. w N N+� �+ m�
~ W � C O � N y � ~ W W � �0 .�C �-�+
m -.y N.+ a'+ .Q �O ro H++ U
q,X r+ N V U O• C.� H++ O
ep dy M Ip +1 ri O W+V (0 7 N
V 3�� N N�, � f� A£�� N � M�
� ~ � .� ii m
U U C M N� N N p� Y� 1p N
N m �Np&� ++��V N.ti N�C CW N
W 4i G N� W N a v�-i +� �'C � a.0
cv�•-10i �� mw° ���'o
�
�
N
M
�
Q
H
O
ti
�a
F-�
H
�
O.'
a
a
¢
W
C7
`+t+�i A n N t7' e+i+�
i-. 7 S w m h�G O d
� w 7 S� 3 h� N �
3wvmm���+v+wm
o ay � .. w�'..�+x
��010'�°�,�c��`"K
m i-. cwi g' n. �' �d w o�"' m
N O� �• M� 3 H O�
,+oa�mr.
C � Y 7 M X�y N A� W
rJ MS O tY LT'3'O w7 �
: N� H c+ t+ 7 ry �,G 3C
1-+'p al N t+iG N N 3
m.y+. �'6 `�G 3 N b' w M
� l7'f � C� N W N N C
�+ � ' f1 lfl `G N 10
" y N N N� N A CNi S S
7C N<; � W��y N A N
W M M O ��`C N W N
A' M 'Q N t+. �+ N f] n+
fp w M M 7 f+ • f+
y�+c o ae 3 m m
amcIymm�`°m~�.
� N ffl y N. N�1f Ip � N
V 3 w 'f V 3
�+ S .�, �. �c � e+ o �. o
c:°..�+o� i° m w �ap�
N'O � on X e► p' � N 3
; � O•• y y p `+. N
y 1D O. N r1 i-+
c�. f1 3 ('i 7`G O
O S d M �G N
� h+. N 7
O +
�
cn m�p � vvoa.m-I�+a�
S 3 O� r M 7 a N N� M �. f1
� q N� 0�S ff Q t0 r N�7
'C N'D �-1 O O N� M�+ 7 A Gi
� �+g � �g »ws� � ���
m `�mao�.3+°o°�c��poo�
p�%p N H et M N7��-+ �D � C i+
y M N N S� d O Q M N M d � ff
C N. � N � y N N� t�+ �y9� f.
� f�. .�i 'O ff 4G 17+'(� fQi F► n+� W 01 fl. W
f+ W O fJ17 O.� 3 W`G f'] N N N
�6 7 C O� O h�+ h M O 7"d �'
� a �+ ~ rF ,+ 0� S�p� d M�6 N C
c1 ��G O S 7 ✓'� � C � �7 e+
�+ x �n ti w � �+� � � .» ..
7N w O � C b 0� � A� 3'O �D `C C
O. �+h•~ � SRfI NT�N Cµf � `+~
� O� 7�i h M m s h m 7 W
p WN�....�o�a�vn�.
�avaw��i�c wo.`�.mA
9 O f1 N 7 �+� ai � x
7 M� a� O. w � A.� m a C n
N�� N d M�� � O`C N N F+� A
��...w 3 �-0 3 �,w o art.�
�+• 7�� O ~�� N p f1 � O. �C
.� m maa p
• 3�`G % 4� N R�3p f/1m
7[y'f <� T fi 7 7 et 4� N
. tQ tl1 1F+ f+`~G tf 0.�
. � .. N W r+. •
• O 7
7 d
• N
.-, v......x. � � . �annZw.+�w+*f'.a` .. . . . . ,,. � .. ' . �° d.: %K'�w.•qs..�+r . w ='ax'a�'s�r,.�c+ff "_ .1'.... �.+mr�
. .. ' .._. -_ - ' �.'. c.- .—.. . .. _. . .._, _. . _ �-� ..
'-1
�
a
Hq
Z
R1
C�
s
�
7n
O
a
lr'FI
t�7
i
S
N
`�1 O
H �-1
F+ N N
�� d
v p N tll
7 h
� o.
w°:m�
7 7 X S
� NH o
N t�' A �-+
O • t*
h N O
d Z A M
cn m c�
A � �
w o
N v
N
h
1+
�/
N
=mo�c�t
r � N N C
N� [f N w
� N N 7 �+
� � n O
fl� �+ 7C e+ p'
•o N. �+. A
O tl�f N ��+• W
N
iG �, O d�
i+ � v
hX � C.
� � O
wt�+.�
7 �D y
• �
m
N
a
�
W
:
rr
O
w
w
a
I-+
N
fi
O
z
m
m
�
0
S
O
O
Ir
7
S
N
fS
r
N
N
N
O
M
�
g
r
N
h
?
O
F+�
�
� � � � o � z
wm w� � � a
H H �-i H R�i
w �+. t.. f+
3 A� 9 e+ c�
�
N
w
V
aroam
aA1mc
� � �, m
N A+ �+ 3
N ^b A
w � z
' m W 3
I � ���
m
c�
�
H
�
H
Z
m
�
3
�
�
♦ f
/
�
�
�
�
1"�7
� _
� �'.. _. .�. .
� ., '�&g-^ y.�.-S�.^..�.. �.. . . �`"el'_!�'l.��[e��+�0 " _ �.r$''–..._ 'f� �ie�ryK:" — -�-'��_ _ . _
�__, . , , .. � �
The Northeast School of �y�nnstics
and Exercise
�90 t9ain st. N.E.
Fridiey� Minnesota 55++32
� .
� w�- � �. ��,
� • � � � � � i� •
.. 6000 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIYE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 5542] / 560-6100
Aug�st 8, 1977
IUsr Rish+trd Harris,
DR. JOHN K. HANSEN
SUPERINTEN�ENT
JAMES H. HEDREN
DIRECTOR
BUSINE55 AiF�IRS
JAMES G. PAPPAS
otttccroR
ELEMENT�RY EOUCATION
I ha�� b�sz ixfoxa�ed that you ar� th� shaira�az of th� p�'■■� sommissi�i
tur� ia Frii1�7. Als�, I utier�taai that Ji11 Za� tus rsqusstsi a sp�sial
w� parmi.t ia �ri�r that �hs mi.�ht spsrat� e asho�l �t pn�astisa ud exmnis�
ia s buildi�g J�t t• ba amtrwted behiai Hob�s Pr�dus�.
. I vau�i.aalc-thAt 1oa ss�i.ier-h�r r�qwst in a p�si�.i.se xayr.far th� --
3�13.swia� r�u�rt
---Jill Zak tautht ia th� Friils� Seh��L ui ia apr •ttisation prned t•
bs a fi=s iastruet�r ia pt��isal siusati�n sluse�.
---Ji12 Zak 1� a hfch n�ral pers�a thaL �nuli ha�e a tiae iatluenae �a
y�� shilitva.
---Rht �hildr�x �f Friilq xoald b�aerit �rsat� tran s jall run pr��ras
ia paaastiaa ud exsrei��.
I thawk ��n far T�nr t�oe swd e�a�iierati�x in thi� aatt�r.
Y�urs trua,T,
Dr. D�� Alb�rt��a, Priasip�l
HaTea TtLasxtu� Ssheol